Anti-Smoking Laws

[DesignFox]

Blas- in response to your "work someplace else"...what if there isn't any place else?

What if someone is a good bartender and that's what they make good money doing? They should just drop it, then?

I applaud you and PowerBoy for being courteous smokers. I wish there were more people like you.

I wish that we didn't need a ban. I wish that all restaurants had ventilated areas for us non-smokers to go so that we didn't have to go home smelling like an ashtray. I wish there were choices of smoking and non-smoking places.

Sad fact is, there never were until now.

And I can finally go out and enjoy a meal. I don't have to hide at home...or sit down...think "Oh good...no smokers.." only to have someone light up at the table next to me.

By Rahmota's logic, since I was sitting there, NOT smoking, FIRST, the smokers should have to take it elsewhere. OR maybe they could just be courteous and ASK BEFORE LIGHTING UP.

I have friends who smoke. They do not blow smoke in my face. They go OUTSIDE to smoke when I am around. They do not smoke in my car. They ASK ME IF IT'S OK before smoking around me. They know that smoke has adverse effects on me.

I do not go in their homes and tell them to stop smoking! We just compromise.

Smoke all you want. I don't care as long as I don't have to suffer for it.

Smoke in your house. Go outside and light up. Go confine yourself to a bubble and smoke yourself to oblivion! It's your choice. But don't come sit next to me while I'm eating and think I'll be ok with it. I'm not.

I agree with the pissing in the pool statement. Piss in your own pool. Don't mess up my waters because you don't want to walk to the bathroom.

[ebonyknight]

Here we go again....

*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?*

Is it okay to threaten someones health by eating peanuts and spreading peanut dust in the air at certain restaurants? According to you guys (I am sure the reason will change again), now it's that peanuts are useful and you can gain nourishment.

Again...that's a benefit YOU can enjoy at others expense. All of you so far keep saying that when your actions threaten another, you've crossed the line. I think peanut dust to an allergic person certainly qualifies. Smokers enjoy a mental benefit that can irritate non-smokers. Peanut eaters enjoy a physical benefit that can kill people with peanut allergies.

Your justification is that peanuts provide nourishment. Sorry there are plenty of people that don't get that benefit. So that benefit means nothing to them. It will kill them quicker than smoking will.

You can't have it both ways. Either you've crossed the line when you threaten another's health or you don't.

You can get plenty of protein from other sources. Peanuts are not the sole source. And we aren't talking about banning them. Just keeping them out of public places where other people's health can be threatened. No one's stopping you from contaminating the air in your own home.

Same argument, it just doesn't appeal to you because it doesn't affect you. You can't use keep using the argument that when it affects another, you've crossed the line, then put caveats on it. It's as unfair to the allergic person as non-smokers have been claiming all along.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, actually, I am in favor of peanut-free zones.

I'm not allergic, and I don't know anyone who is. However, I do realize that it is a DEADLY allergy.

For instance: in my kid's nursery, they have little parties sometimes. Some bonehead wanted to bring PBJ sandwitches. Why would anyone think that's a good idea in a freaking nursery? It's a TERRIBLE idea. Why? Because it's just not worth it to put kids at risk and then leave it up to the already overworked caregivers to remember which kids have permission to eat it and which don't. The stakes are too high. Let's not do the peanut butter.

And it doesn't take much, either. A contaminated butter knife cutting a sandwitch is all it takes to kill an extremely allergic kid, so, again, it's not worth it. Eat your PBJ at home, don't bring it here.

My argument stands.

[Colchek]

Peanut allergies are a medical condition. Smoking is a smoker's personal choice. You're comparing apples to oranges.

A person eating peanuts isn't going to know people nearby are allergic to them until that person mentions it. For those who know that they can have, or have had, an anaphylactic response to them, they typically wear bracelets to alert people to their condition. That's why restaurants that serve peanuts have notices to inform them that going into that restaurant may pose a risk to them. If they risk it, that's their choice. As for certain restaurants serving peanuts, they're food. That's what they do.

Smoking, on the other hand, has documentation galore about its health effects. Everyone, in some way, is affected by it. Therefore a smoker lighting up in a public place is making a conscious decision knowing that anyone near them is going to be affected by what they are doing. If the majority that do not care would respect that it affects everyone, there wouldn't be a need for the laws.

I still stand by my argument that the situations are completely different.

[Greenday]

The dust off peanuts, based on the article posted about them, from concentrated peanuts is such a ridiculously minuscule amount that it's VERY doubtful that people can be harmed just by being near them. Touching peanuts, yea, but not breathing in air somewhere nearby where someone is eating a few. Smoking carries a lot more in a bigger volume.

[DesignFox]

The dust off peanuts, based on the article posted about them, from concentrated peanuts is such a ridiculously minuscule amount that it's VERY doubtful that people can be harmed just by being near them. Touching peanuts, yea, but not breathing in air somewhere nearby where someone is eating a few. <snip>

Actually, Greenday, people CAN die by inhaling peanut dust.

I used to work at a summer camp. There was one week, during one summer, where all the counselors were alerted to the presence of one such child in camp. We didn't know which child...we weren't to single her out.

We did have to ask all the parents not to pack peanut products for their children, and the child's direct counselor was informed and had to discreetly check that all the kids had no peanuts around this girl.

That is why restaurants that keep out fresh peanuts post warnings on their doors.

To me, that's how it should be. Not all restaurants leave fresh peanuts out on their tables or in boxes , but those that do should sufficiently warn people who may suffer from allergies. (In all of my dining experiences in our great state, I've only been to ONE such restaurant- so I don't think peanut people have much to worry about.)

Anyway- before the ban, very nearly every restaurant allowed smoking (or didn't enforce their no-smoking signs). Non-smokers weren't given much of a choice.

And at least in our state, I'm pretty sure it's the people that demanded the ban...not big brother just swooping in and taking over. There were MANY petitions asking for local government to put this law into effect.

[rahmota]

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?

Why the frak would I throw a punch at you if you dont do anythign to deserve it? Like getting up in my face about somethign I'm doing. I mean if I was a smoker and I lit up in a public space and you came over and got all high and mighty in my face about my smoking then you may have earned a punch in the face but otherwise you stay on your side and I stay on mine and there be no punches flying or anything bad a-happening.

I see no difference in someone lighting up next to me and exposing me to the smoke.

Wow you might wanna change your point of view there pardner. It must be difficult to breathe with where your head is right now. To compare smoking with punching someone in the face is not only bad logic but comparing apples to oranges. One is physical violence which should only be used when appropriate and the other is a personal behavior/right to act that some people get bent about and shouldnt.

So did I.

Really? Wow I couldnt tell. I guess it does go to show that nature vs nurture thing dont always work out right.

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.

You cannot and should not even begin to attempt to legislate either morals or consideration. that is thought police. In a free country thought police should be regarded as evil outright and anyone who supports thought police should be hung by the neck until dead. What i am telling you and other whiny people is STFU and get out of peoples lives and trying to tell people how to live their life. you do not have that right and do not have that priviledge unless someone grants it to you. I have never said avoid public places. I have said if you have such a big issue and problem with being around smokers no one is forcing you to go where there are smokers and thereare and always have been plenty of options available pre-ban. No one is holdign a gun to your head and tellign you you have to go be around smokers. you however are holdign a gun to smokers head (figuratively hopefully) and telling them they dont have the right to make a choice as an adult about the way they behave.

[Greenday]

The only options to avoid smoking pre-bans was to not go out for dinner, not go to bars, not go bowling, etc. etc. There was no escape. I've never even heard of a place that banned smoking pre-bans. If you wanted to go out into public, you were SOL.

It's been mentioned before. If all smokers were like the ones who post here are, there wouldn't be any problems. But there are a lot of smokers who are jerks, don't give a crap about blowing smoke in anyone and everyone's faces, smoke in non-smoking areas, etc. Non-smokers were sick of it and now the poor, considerate smokers are paying for it.

[blas87]

Just to be clear, smoke free restaurants do not and have not bothered me. All restaurants here are smoke free (save for the one I worked at, but that's a different city). I can go an hour without a cigarette or I can go outside. Restaurants I have NO problem being smoke free.

[Greenday]

And bars...?

[blas87]

Bars are a different story. I was actually misinformed, the smoking ban will still go into effect on July 1 here, but it's just for my city, not the county or state. But that's fine, more people can just get more DUIs for going to other cities and travelling longer distances to be able to smoke at bars out in the middle of nowhere. I know for a fact my friends, boyfriend and I will be willing to use the extra gas to travel 10-20 miles to find a bar where we can smoke. No, I am not encouraging drunk driving, I'm just making a point here. People will go where they can smoke, regardless of the consequences. I never drive nor take my car anywhere we go when I drink, so I won't be getting any. I guess the county and state cops will have to double up night shifts and search the boonies now...because only the little piss ant "redneck" towns are the only ones left where you still can smoke at the bar.

As of this moment, there are 2 non smoking bars on the "bar street" by the university. Sure, that's like 10 smoking bars to 2 non smoking, but I like the option. Non smokers have their own bars. Of course, there will be more live music at the smoking bars, because a lot of the local musicians smoke and won't go to bars where they can't. But it's a win/win situation. And that's the way I think it should be. If an owner of a bar wants it non smoking, fine. If an owner wants it smoking, fine. As long as there are options for both.

If it were like the Twin Cities where I could step outside of the bar and smoke, I'd be okay with that too. But the smoking ban is going to prohibit smoking 20 feet from public places. So I'd have to pretty much walk into the middle of the road to smoke a cigarette. That's not fair.

[Greenday]

If it were like the Twin Cities where I could step outside of the bar and smoke, I'd be okay with that too. But the smoking ban is going to prohibit smoking 20 feet from public places. So I'd have to pretty much walk into the middle of the road to smoke a cigarette. That's not fair.

New Jersey has a limit on how far away from a building you have to be when you smoke. I have never seen that part of the law enforced. As long as you don't smoke inside, no one gives a crap.

I still don't see why it's such a big deal to step outside for a moment to have your smoke so everyone can actually enjoy a bar.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, Rahmota, I live in the south where big tobacco is king and I'd love for you to share with me these "plenty of places for non-smokers to go". Supposedly, all these places existed before the ban, so I imagine they still do. I've apparently lived my entire life in ignorance of them. Please, do share what you know. Because right now, a place for me to see a show, eat supper, have a drink with friends, play music, or dance without coming home having to wash my hair and take benedryl is in extremely short order.

Seriously. I would LOVE to know where I could go to do some of these things and still be able to breathe.

And don't tell me "places with non-smoking sections." I think we've already established here that that is not a viable solution.

I really do think that the one of the problems that smokers have with taking the grievances of non-smokers seriously is that they DON'T take them seriously. On some level, they just do not believe that it genuinely bothers many people. They think those people are whiners, that they are babies, or drama queens. Deep down, they really do not believe that it's a genuine problem. I mean, it doesn't bother them; clearly, they enjoy it. So the people with a real problem being exposed to even light smoke must be faking it for attention.

Not trying to be provocative, here, but I'm just putting a name on the attitude towards non-smokers that I have encountered time and time again. Say I have severe bronchitis. I have a coughing fit triggered by anything; temperature change, pollen, or yes, smoke. If I DARE cough around a smoker, then suddenly I am the asshole. Because the attitude is that I'm faking it.

[blas87]

Let me re-iterate that I would actually have NO PROBLEM going outside for a smoke at the bar. (as long as someone watched my drink). But I am bothered by the 20 feet rule.....I suppose if I see others doing it, I'll do it.

Another point I'd just like to add.....these smoking bans are not going to force people to quit smoking. Lots of people are going to violate the rules and like I said, more DUIs are going to be issued and more police will be needed to go to small areas to find all the people drinking and driving.

[Greenday]

Another point I'd just like to add.....these smoking bans are not going to force people to quit smoking. Lots of people are going to violate the rules and like I said, more DUIs are going to be issued and more police will be needed to go to small areas to find all the people drinking and driving.

Um, good? People shouldn't be driving drunk and should get punished for doing it. Makes it easier for the cops to fill their quotas.