Anti-Smoking Laws

[ebonyknight]

As much as I'd like to argue about that, it has absolutely nothing to do with smoking, unless you are trying to get at people should be held responsible for their actions, in which case I agree. Both cases, people are endangering other people's lives. Smoking is not nearly as immediate a problem but it still harms other people regardless.

Who is the government to tell us what we can and cannot do? The government elected by the people to create laws wanted by the majority of the people.

You can do what you want to yourself, but when it affects other people, that's when you cross the line.

According to you, because it is law, it is the will of the people.

Well for your information, the couple will not and cannot be charged with a crime, because (as of last count) 40 of the states have religious exemptions for healing prayer.

Is that the will of the people? How can they have crossed the line if it isn't against the law?

As the old saying goes, you can't legislate morality and saying it's the law is a cop out, as I have just demonstrated.

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.



It still hasn't been explained to me how the Law of Mass/Matter Conversion isn't violated by the "study" that first hand smoke can be the same as exhaled smoke?

It's funny how people can parrot studies, "facts" and other things they have never seen or read, just because it fits their own morality. Several people have now parroted the same thing, yet none can tell me why it violates a known scientific law.

[Norton]

Again I pose the question:

Can we not have both smoking and non-smoking establishments? I just can't believe how it seems like no one wants a compromise here. A total ban can't be the best solution.

This is about individual freedom of choice. Business owners should have the freedom to make their business smoke friendly or not. We as customers, would have the freedom to frequent or reject those businesses, thus showing our support or disapproval while not sacrificing our own enjoyment - non-smokers and smokers alike.

If given a choice, I'll patronize smoking establishments, keeping my cigarette far away from non-smokers in the smoke-free business down the road. However, I don't have that choice in my state.

[Greenday]

Can we not have both smoking and non-smoking establishments? I just can't believe how it seems like no one wants a compromise here. A total ban can't be the best solution.

That's how it's been for years and it was nearly impossible to find a place that didn't allow smoking. Because if they didn't allow smoking, that'd be discrimination, wouldn't it?

As for the couple not being charge, once again, I don't do law, I only do facts and the fact is, the parents did absolutely nothing to help their kid and unfortunately, the kid paid the price for it.

Should you be able to go to a restaurant and demand that they remove any and all peanuts from the place? No. Why? Because that's ridiculous. Peanuts are not being forced on you like smoke is. No one is forcing you to buy products with peanuts in it.

As for the Law of Conservation of Mass, now you are in my field. The amount of smoke inhaled has to be equal to the amount of chemicals that stay in your system plus the amount of chemicals breathed out. As for how much of both those products their are, I don't know. Could be 60/40, could be 80/20, could be 40/60. I've never bothered with the studies. What I do know is that the amount of chemicals emitted by the smoker is greater than zero and thus has an effect on me.

[Colchek]

As for the Law of Conservation of Mass, now you are in my field. The amount of smoke inhaled has to be equal to the amount of chemicals that stay in your system plus the amount of chemicals breathed out. As for how much of both those products their are, I don't know. Could be 60/40, could be 80/20, could be 40/60. I've never bothered with the studies. What I do know is that the amount of chemicals emitted by the smoker is greater than zero and thus has an effect on me.

Which is the point I was trying to make. The body isn't going to absorb 100 percent of the smoke, the same as it doesn't absorb 100 percent of the oxygen in the air you breathe in each time. The dangers of the chemicals and other compounds in that smoke when it comes out are not reduced by having been in the lungs.

For perusal: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...dhandSmoke.htm

Straight from the CDC.

There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous.2

[rahmota]

That's how it's been for years and it was nearly impossible to find a place that didn't allow smoking. Because if they didn't allow smoking, that'd be discrimination, wouldn't it?

And by making a universal smoking ban that isnt discrimination in return?

Anti-smoking laws are a pain in the ass adn I dont smoke. I dont care if someone smokes and I've been around smokers all my life and have perfectly healthy lungs. It depends a lot on the health and genetic predisposition of the person. Also tobacco itself is not the source of most of the chemicals its the additives the cigarette companies put on the stuff that makes them truely unhealthy. Smokign tobacco straight out of the barn is a lot healthier.

But heres my solution drop any asinine morality based or alleged health based law and if you dont like being around smokers either go somewhere else, suck it up and deal with it, or get a mask. Just dont get up on your GD high horse and proclaim yourself to be the moral high ground defender and yell and berate those who want to smoke or be around smokers. Adults have the right to choose to do what they want to themselves (or at least they should and would if the moralist whiny wackos would STFU) and if that means doing something you personally dont like tough.

I swear I'm half tempted to take up smoking just to protest this BS. I know I'm never going to help enforce one of these stupid laws.

[DesignFox]

The difference is that I'm not affecting anyone by not smoking.

Someone else smoking in a building forces me to inhale smoke, smell smoke...smell like smoke.

And nobody ever has a non-smoking restaurant. Shit, the one restaurant my BF and I used to frequent claimed to be NON-smoking. You know how many people would like up right under the NO smoking sign?

What would the restaurant do about it? NOTHING.

We had to suffer.

Most restaurants have seating outdoors. Go outside to smoke. I don't see what the big deal is.

I also don't think it's fair to force people to work in smoky conditions. They have to WORK. It's not always a matter of just "go someplace else".

*Edit to add: I think that night at the restaurant in question, my BF and I asked the server to wrap up our just served food because we could not tolerate the smoke. We were polite about it, but it was upsetting to have to leave because the smokers had to light up even though we were there- and not smoking -first.

[Colchek]

Ok, let's get down to the real heart of the matter. Tobacco products, in all their forms, boil down to one basic item: nicotine. Nicotine is, and will always be, a narcotic. It is addictive, it is what makes smoking 'pleasureable' by stimulating receptors in the brain, and it is why people crave tobacco in order to give their body what it needs because it is now dependent on nicotine to function normally.

If people were talking about smoking crack, this discussion would be taking a completely different turn. Replace crack with tobacco, and now it's all of a sudden ok to smoke a narcotic? The difference between them is that unlike crack, tobacco is legal and freely available. Therefore, you don't see the problems that would occur if tobacco /wasn't/ freely available, and people had to seek out their next fix from a dealer. You'd have people doing all the various things that cause problems, like robbery, to get their next nicotine fix. Instead, they can go to any store and plop down cash to buy it. It's addictiveness is why smokers have a hard time quitting. They suffer the same withdrawl symptoms as any addict trying to quit.

You can't tell me that sitting next to a crack smoker is better for your health than a tobacco smoker. Once again, the difference is that one is illegal, and the other isn't. This brings up the question, why is tobacco legal? Because people have been smoking it for centuries, oblivious to the harmful effects. "Ah, but so have people been doing cocaine!" True, to a point. Coca leaves were used by ancient South American tribes for ceremonial purposes, and 'vision quests'. Many still do. Once the West discovered it's other properties in the 19th century, it quickly became outlawed. (Coke free Coke anyone?) Tobacco's effects weren't discovered until later, but by then, it was harder to stop because it was available in every store in the country. Not to mention it's a huge cash cow for government. It remains that way to this day.

So. Tobacco, due to its nicotine content, is a narcotic. It is a drug, plain and simple. A legal drug, but a drug none-the-less. Unlike many drugs, however, its use does not affect only the person smoking it. It affects them and everyone around them who breathes in the byproduct. Marijuana would be the same if you were near a person smoking it. With the question of its legality stripped from the equation, you now have a simple matter of people consuming a drug in public places, and exposing others who choose not to consume this drug to its method of introduction to the body, aka the smoke. There's a reason there have been many campaigns to prevent youths from taking up smoking, because it is addictive, harmful to your health and to that of others. Therefore, attempts are now being made to shield people from its use, rather than go the extreme of outlawing tobacco.

Looking at it from that perspective, can you truly defend it? If tobacco was classified as the drug it really is, would you then be vilifying laws that ban it?

[blas87]

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?

I have no problem smoking outside....but with the new laws, smokers are prohibited from smoking within x feet of businesses or public places. So I can't just walk outside and have a smoke. I am not walking 20-100 feet away just to have a cigarette to make everyone happy and be forced to smoke in the shadows with my fellow smokers.

Thankfully, they dropped the city-wide smoking ban in favor of going after a state-wide ban that will be looked at next year. So at least my first year of being 21 I'll still be able to smoke at the bars.

[rahmota]

Looking at it from that perspective, can you truly defend it? If tobacco was classified as the drug it really is, would you then be vilifying laws that ban it?

HELL YES! I am against drug laws anyhow and since Tobacco is not a drug ,never was and never shall be, in the same category as crack or heroin and is not as addictive as you are making it out to be I would be damned upset with any laws prohibiting it. Not to mention I personally know several farmers who have been hurt financially by all these BS anti-smoking whining laws.

Tobacco and Marijuana in their natural organic forms do have a stiulative effect on the body and in high enough dosages do cause other effects. however the addictive properties depend greatly upon the user's physical structure and condition. The average cigarette yields only about 1mg of nicotine so lets drop the act that you're smokign pure nicotine or that nicotine is the most abundent substance in a cigarette.

It is a drug, plain and simple

And by the broad definitions used in your posting so is caffeine and a whole lot of other stuff that people routinely ingest on a daily basis. Should we get rid of anythign and everythign that is harmful to a person? Well that would leave plain distilled water and organic wheat bread. Forget that noise. I'd rather die happy doing what I enjoy, eating what I enjoy or if I do take it up smoking what I enjoy. not doing or eating or not smoking what someone else tells me to. Its my body I can do what I want with it.

Most restaurants have seating outdoors. Go outside to smoke. I don't see what the big deal is.

And if the smokers are indoors whats keeping you from goign outside to eat? If its weather or other conditions then how can you honestly and fairly expect smokers to go out and eat in it if you wont go out and eat in it? I dont see what the big deal is either. You have a choice. They make sprays to remove odors from clothes. which I doubt casual exposure to smoke can really stink clothes up that bad as I used to go to smokey biker/redneck bars and a quick spritz or a run through the wash and the clothes I was wearing smelled daisy freash (or at least as close to it as anythign I wear ever gets)

Anyhow it seems to me that the whole thing about anti-smoking laws is that some people dont like it and dont enjoy it and they get angry when they see someone who does enjoy it and have to get up on their high horse and prohibit what someone else enjoys because they dont like it. Busy body nannyism. Just because you dont like it, dont enjoy it and dont wanna do it doesnt give you the right to stop someone else who does enjoy it, doesnt care if there are risks involved and does like it from doing it. And that word it could be used to explain a lot of different things.

[Greenday]

Well, I'm seeing arguments on both sides that I don't agree with. Some of the arguments I see on the anti-smoking side just don't make plain sense and I'm just never going to see a valid reason why I should be forced to inhale your smoke and not allowed to breathe in fresh, clean air while I eat dinner or go to a bar. Telling me to go to a smoke-free bar or restaurant is another bad argument, as in my 17 years of living without anti-smoking laws, I never found one such establishment. Alls I ask is that you don't smoke where it affects me. Don't smoke inside these buildings and don't smoke at the entrance. Anywhere else and I don't care what you do. It doesn't affect me, and it doesn't affect other people who don't want to breathe in smoke-filled air.

[Seshat]

It still hasn't been explained to me how the Law of Mass/Matter Conversion isn't violated by the "study" that first hand smoke can be the same as exhaled smoke?

Yes it has, but I'll repeat in a rephrase.

SOME of the particulate matter and toxins in an inhaled breath of smoke get stuck in the lungs. Not ALL.

Now, I haven't personally done a study, so I don't know what percentage gets stuck in the smoker's lungs, and what percentage gets exhaled.

But I do know that when I wear one of my breathing masks (yes, I use them), the mask gets dirtier when I'm around smokers than when I'm not. Even if I'm in the exact same place at the exact same time of day, and it's only the smokers' presence or absence that changes.

Can we not have both smoking and non-smoking establishments? I just can't believe how it seems like no one wants a compromise here. A total ban can't be the best solution.

You must have missed some of my posts.

I'd be happy to compromise and have some smoke-free and some smoking establishments: if it actually happened. I've just never seen it happen.

Also, many of the staff of the bars and pubs who I've spoken to have said 'I'm a smoker myself, but I've been so much happier and healthier since this place went smoke-free'. It's anecdotal, sure, but when even the smoking staff prefer the place non-smoking, that says a lot to me.

But heres my solution drop any asinine morality based or alleged health based law and if you dont like being around smokers either go somewhere else, suck it up and deal with it, or get a mask.

That's what I've been doing since I was about 20. Now what do I do about smokers who get offended when I put my mask on?

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?

Anyhow it seems to me that the whole thing about anti-smoking laws is that some people dont like it and dont enjoy it and they get angry when they see someone who does enjoy it and have to get up on their high horse and prohibit what someone else enjoys because they dont like it. Busy body nannyism.

I haven't campaigned against smoking, but I have been much happier since the indoor smoking ban where I am.

But for me, it's not about anger when someone else is enjoying something. (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.)

Ahem. It's not about anger when someone else is enjoying something. It's me getting angry about needless pain and suffering that I get because someone else is being inconsiderate.

Like I said in an earlier post, I'm fine with considerate smokers. I'll take the extra time to travel around them so I don't get their secondhand smoke, I'll avoid places that I know they'll be. And in the past, that was every club, bar, and restaurant in the entire damn city.

And yes, even now, inconsiderate smokers will light up right in front of me. And then get upset when I flee or put my mask on (or both). ARGH!

[Amethyst Hunter]

Somehow hearing your reasoning so far, I would doubt your last statement. I believe you would be cheering.

It just incenses me to see people want to censure other people based on what THEY believe is "best for them". And don't say that you don't feel that way "I'm not going to lie and say that I feel bad about Evil Smoking Bans that apply to particular public places - because I just don't."

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.

Personally, I think smoking is a fucking disgusting habit. But if someone else wants to poison themselves, that's their problem, much like it's only my problem if I eat something that makes me sick despite knowing better. Smoking becomes a problem for me when I *have* (as in, mandatory) to go to particular public places and despite my efforts not to, wind up inhaling or even marinating in other people's death-fumes. (And like Seshat said, when even the *staff* of a smoke-populated building are saying that they're happier without it, that's pretty bad)

[Colchek]

Tobacco and Marijuana in their natural organic forms do have a stiulative effect on the body and in high enough dosages do cause other effects. however the addictive properties depend greatly upon the user's physical structure and condition. The average cigarette yields only about 1mg of nicotine so lets drop the act that you're smokign pure nicotine or that nicotine is the most abundent substance in a cigarette.

The amount doesn't matter. Yes, like anything, it takes time to get addicted, but the fact remains, once addicted, daily smoking becomes a need, not a choice. So therefore yes, I do place it in the same category. What other purpose is there for smoking a cigarette?

And by the broad definitions used in your posting so is caffeine and a whole lot of other stuff that people routinely ingest on a daily basis. Should we get rid of anythign and everythign that is harmful to a person? Well that would leave plain distilled water and organic wheat bread. Forget that noise. I'd rather die happy doing what I enjoy, eating what I enjoy or if I do take it up smoking what I enjoy. not doing or eating or not smoking what someone else tells me to. Its my body I can do what I want with it.

I don't feel the effects in my body if you drink a cup of coffee. I don't feel the effects in my body if you have a drink. I /do/ feel the effects if you smoke. That's the key difference that has been pointed out many times. You don't have the right to do to /my/ body what you see fit.

[ebonyknight]

Which is the point I was trying to make. The body isn't going to absorb 100 percent of the smoke, the same as it doesn't absorb 100 percent of the oxygen in the air you breathe in each time. The dangers of the chemicals and other compounds in that smoke when it comes out are not reduced by having been in the lungs.

For perusal: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...dhandSmoke.htm

Straight from the CDC.

Well I see that some people have gotten my point (not you two though). Like I said before the body is going to absorb some of that stuff. You two are so stuck on your high horses you keep transposing whether it's harmful or not with your contentions that NONE of it is absorbed.

Again, inhaled smoke IS NOT the same as exhaled smoke, but you are too stuck on being in the moral right, that you ignore basic science.

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.

[ebonyknight]

But heres my solution drop any asinine morality based or alleged health based law and if you dont like being around smokers either go somewhere else, suck it up and deal with it, or get a mask. Just dont get up on your GD high horse and proclaim yourself to be the moral high ground defender and yell and berate those who want to smoke or be around smokers. Adults have the right to choose to do what they want to themselves (or at least they should and would if the moralist whiny wackos would STFU) and if that means doing something you personally dont like tough.

I swear I'm half tempted to take up smoking just to protest this BS. I know I'm never going to help enforce one of these stupid laws.

*Standing ovation*

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