Attention folks who favor smoking bans: You've won the war

[taterguy]

I hate to start another smoking thread but I thought I'd pass along this tidbit.

There's a poll in my Sunday paper asking if people are in favor of banning smoking in restaurants.

The result was 60/40 in favor of a ban.

Not exactly an overwhelming margin until you consider that I live in the hometown of RJR Tobacco.

What's next? Detroit putting in a bunch of bike lanes?

[panader0]

1. I can understand banning smoking in offices, stores and

restaurants. But bars? There are a few neighborhood bars around here with the same clientel every day. Most are smokers and hace stopped going to the bars as much. The smoking ban around here has hurt the bar business alot. The bars, in turn, can't afford to hire bands as often, affecting musicians like me. I a\was in favor of the bars becoming private clubs with small fees so patrons can smoke.

[hlthe2b]

4. Ding, ding, ding: Bars as private clubs as a solution

I agree with this. While I can see both sides of the argument when it comes to bars, I do believe communities and government at all levels have both a responsibility and vested interest in protecting the public health in a way that is consistent. So, if you are protecting restaurant workers from passive smoke exposure, then it follows that those same protections should apply to bar workers. Thus, having private clubs for those who wish to smoke seems the only reasonable alternative, since, by their very nature, are not regulated, (at least not to the extent of public establishments).

[lildreamer316]

42. Here in NC, a lot of bars *are* private clubs.

I am an exotic entertainer, and the law requires us to have a membership/private club situation to have a cabaret license. It's common practice for a lot of nightclubs (non-erotic ones also) around here to do this also; makes the abc license much, much easier to get because of the fact a lot of these clubs have different acts performing, etc.

So if a smoking ban was tried here, it hopefully would not affect a majority of these establishments ( I firmly believe that smoking in bars should be allowed). Where the problem is going to be, is with the chain restaurants (Applebees, etc.) There are enough bars and nightclubs that serve food that it could conceivably put a dent in the business of the chains.

[cuke]

43. I suspect the ban would extend to private clubs

As I understand it, many times the bans are justified on the grounds of protecting the employees of the establishment and not the customers.

[abq e streeter]

15. Another musician here.

and I was working with another group of musicians who'd started an organization called "musicians for smoke-free stages"( who worked , in turn, with the American Cancer Society). We helped pass the no-indoor-smoking law here in NM, and I even spoke, along with a bass player fiend , to a senate committee in favor of the ban. Sorry.... but the majority of musicians we spoke to were sick (literally) of having to constantly breathe an array of carcinogenic toxins in order to play our music and earn our living. There have been neither more nor fewer gigs available since this bill went into effect, but even if there had been a downturn, we thought that was a chance worth taking to significantly lessen the chance of dying of cancer or emphysema from nightly exposure to TOXIC second hand smoke.

[pnwmom]

54. Makes sense. I've never known a singer who thought smoke was good for the voice.

[Riktor]

59. Marlboros and Jack Daniels worked for Tom Waits...

... if that's your bag of tricks.

[abq e streeter]

68. I've known good singers who smoke. I can't for the life of me understand why...

but again, I defend their right to destroy their own health (and ultimately voice), just not anyone else's, including mine.

[pnwmom]

73. Dana Reeve, Christopher's wife, was a cabaret singer and a non-smoker.

But she and her doctors believed it was the years of second-hand exposure while singing that led to her early death from lung cancer.

[abq e streeter]

75. I knew about that

and that's why I was involved with other musicians to get the indoor smoking ban to include bars. My previous reply to you was only referring to singers I know who smoke ( and the main one I'm thinking of actually understands the need for this law). While I hate seeing friends hurt themselves, they have that right, but not the right to poison me with second hand smoke. Didn't mean to sound like I was trying to contradict you. We're on the same page on this issue. I myself am afraid of what the future holds after many years of night after night in smoke-filled bars. Just as an aside, the musician friend that I testified with to the state senate committee considering this bill, (a lawyer/bass player,) was just sworn in Friday night as the newest justice of the NM supreme court. He's a brilliant guy, and a real progressive who has walked the walk as well as talked the talk regarding empowering women and minorities, advancing the cause of civil liberties etc. The son of Arkansas sharecroppers, who was the first in his family to even ATTEND high school. I'm so damn proud of him I can hardly express it in words.

[pnwmom]

80. I wish the courts were filled with justices like your friend!

He sounds like quite an inspiration.

It's tough when you play or even enjoy music to deal with the issue of smoke. Before they changed the laws here, I avoided going with my husband to many of the good venues for music in the area, because of the smoke problem. But the musicians themselves didn't have that option.

[krispos42]

35. It's a worker safety issue

I used to feel the same way that you do. Like comedian Greg Proops said... "You're in a bar drinking poison and trying have sex, unsafely, with strangers!"

Or something to that effect.

But then I realized that the bartenders and waitstaff and, yes, even the band, are all employees and need to be protected from a toxic work environment. Which is what a smoke-filled bar is, unfortunately.

If the same air found in a bar was, say, in my place of work, I'd be wearing a respirator all day.

At least in Minnesota they enacted a state-wide ban a few months ago, replacing a patchwork of county and city bans, so there wasn't really any excuses like "Hey, the neighboring town's not doing it and I'm losing all my business to them!"

It actually looks like business went up because families can go to a bar and grill for dinner and a drink without worrying about their kids getting smoke in their lungs.

But this only works if it's a statewide ban.

I guess a private club with no employees could do it. Then it's just a bunch of private citizens hanging out in a building while smoking.

[pnwmom]

36. So how do you protect employees from exposure? n/t

[Nevernose]

85. Some jobs are safer than others.

Me? I used to hang billboards for a living. Most billboard hangers don't ever fall, injuring themselves or killing themselves at all. But even with OSHA safety regs, it was a heck of a lot more dangerous than, say, being a secretary. But I knew what the risks were went I went in.

Look at the rates of death for fishermen or electricians, for instance. VERY high, even when every possible safety standard is followed. They knew the risks.

I choose the wimps' way out: non-smokers are right from a purely logical standpoint, but non-smokers are right from a moral view. There's not an easy answer to this one, which is why the smokers vs. non threads always end up with 9,000 replies. Both sides can be right, and be wrong AT THE SAME TIME.

[SoCalDem]

40. They tried that tack here in CA, but CA would not allow it

because it would have given the places that allowed it, an "unfair advantage" to get customers...so many folks just entertain at home and listen to recorded music.. the exception was the chi-chi "Cigar clubs"..which makes no sense from the "employee safety" angle, since the cigar smoke that the smokers "don't inhale" ends up BEING inhaled by the "workers".. But of course since mostly high rollers belong to these "clubs", the tips must somehow "compensate" for the safety issues :evilgrin:.

[onehandle]

72. Great idea. Then I could find more bars to go to.

I like bars but have avoided them most of my life because of the smoking. These days I can go to bars more because there are more non-smoking bars and less smokers.

If there were smoking clubs, I'd be able to spend my disposable cash on good drinks and not have them ruined by poison in the air.

Great Idea!

[Sal Minella]

2. We haven't "won the war" until we can watch a movie without the hero or heroine (the youngest and

best-looking of the characters) lighting cigarettes right and left as though smoking cigarettes is an intrinsic part of being an interesting, good-looking, principled human being.

I am sick to death of trying to watch a movie and seeing the most attractive characters (the ones younger people, potential smokers, would identify with) smoking constantly, totally divorced from plot or action.

Columbia-Tristar is the worst offender I'm aware of -- "The Winslow Boy," "Spitfire Grill," and "The Luzhin Defense," to name three of many.

The advertising monies that used to go into magazines are now going into "product placement" in movies. I would love to see the tobacco merchants hauled up short on this.

How conveniently coincidental for them that American movies are sought-after in other countries, and the foreign market for American tobacco is so great.

[lynnertic]

6. come on, smoke looks so great on film!

it's used in all sorts of ways to set a mood or a scene. Also, plush product placement fees don't hurt anyone.

[Sal Minella]

20. Not on x-ray film, it doesn't, dear heart.

Selling poisonous drugs to young people is morally and ethically wrong, and I don't care how "plush" the product placement bribes are.

Edit: I was a medical transcriber in a hospital and transcribed way too many accounts of pulmonary lobe resections on 100 pack-year smokers. Don't try to tell me smoking is harmless.

[lynnertic]

52. I wasn't trying to tell you smoking is harmless.

And I don't beleive it is harmless, myself.

[Feron]

65. I think you are reading too much into it

Some of my favorite movies are older and people smoke left and right. I'm certainly not going to light up because of it. Never felt the need to.

Vices most certainly make characters more developed and interesting. And dare I say it..human. Smokers aren't evil people. I would much rather see a hero or heroine struggle with a vice than some milquetoast anti-drug ad.

And to be honest, there isn't much smoking in movies nowadays anyway. Or at least I'm not actively looking for it.

Furthermore, parents should be the role models for their children and not entertainment.

The problem isn't with cigarettes, it's with the tyranny of good intentions. Regulations banning smoking in the workplace and certain businesses like retail are understandable. However banning smoking in vice hangouts like bars is ridiculous. Ditto with banning protagonists in entertainment lighting up.

And it won't stop with cigarettes: already you have people clamoring to tax/ban junk food in order to combat obesity.

[lynnertic]

3. spoke w/ a lady yesterday who said she was so thankful once smoking was banned in

grocery stores.

:wtf:

[Hoof Hearted]

89. Yeah, people were once allowed to smoke at the grocery store.

They were allowed to smoke while preparing food too, gross as that is.

[Labors of Hercules]

5. Winston is considering a restaurant smoking ban?

:wow:

[taterguy]

7. Nothing pending, just testing the waters

There are fewer and fewer restaurants in town that allow it though

[sam sarrha]

8. here are >Links> related to assumption ban effects bar attendance, probably more related to * fuck'...

up the economy, people cant afford to spend money.

i lived in el paso at the time of the bab.. bar and restaurant attendance actually went up..around 18% an more according to local news papers.. people like my wife and i with medical problems could go to a restaurant for the first time in decades.

the low is to protect workers.. that has to be done across the board

http://www.smokefreetexas.org/business.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=smoking+ban+increased+business+el+paso+tx&spell=1

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm

[gauguin57]

9. Restaurants AND bars have to abide by city building codes, safety codes, etc.

They can't have rickety steps leading to the front door -- endangering people's safety -- or run a business in a structurally unsound building.

Cigarettes may make some people happy, but what they do is kill and cause health problems and disease (and unpleasant living/working conditions all 'round) -- and horrible STENCH everywhere. Don't even lecture me about old people who've smoked all their lives and THEY don't have cancer blah blah blah.

What cigarettes do is kill people, give them emphysema, trigger asthma attacks -- both in the smoker and the second-hand-smoke-receiver. (Don't we have ENOUGH environmental problems?)

If you can't allow restaurants and bars to have rickety steps, they shouldn't be allowed to enable an activity that KILLS PEOPLE.

I am an ex-smoker. I know about addiction, and about the HELL of quitting (cold turkey, no patches or gum or anything). But if I wanna go hear some jazz in a bar, I don't want your goddamned smoke in my face.

[PassingFair]

11. What if the musician smokes?

What if the goddamned BAND wants to smoke.

I'm an EX smoker, too. For 6 years.

If you're so scared of smoke, you should line your windows with saran wrap and STAY PUT!

[gauguin57]

16. The musicians can go outside and smoke during their break.

Problem solved. Everyone else's health protected.

[PassingFair]

17. It's THEIR music, man.

YOU go outside.

[abq e streeter]

22. Outstanding logic

and here's another example: Hey corporate America: go ahead and pollute the livin' shit out of the environment; and if we don't like it, we can just go somewhere else!

[pnwmom]

55. It's EVERYBODY'S air, man.

People who want to blow dirt into it can go outside.

[sam sarrha]

25. you got some serious anger management problens.... seek help

[Bluebear]

29. seriously.

[PassingFair]

34. I just borrowed the language from the post on top of me.

He's the one with anger management problems, but since
he agrees with you, you didn't notice it.

[pnwmom]

37. Or, if you want to smoke

you can take the saran wrap you mentioned and wrap it around your head!

[PassingFair]

39. I don't smoke.

But I'm not a control freak.

[pnwmom]

53. People with asthma and other respiratory problems,

and those who just want to avoid respiratory problems, should be able to go into a bar or restaurant.

It's not about being a control freak, it's about breathing. People who need to breathe (which is everyone, of course) need to breathe everywhere.

People who want to smoke a cigarette can take it outside.

[americanstranger]

56. That's already the case here in NY.

But there are those who, having won the 'smoking indoors' battle, now want to make it illegal to smoke outdoors.

Some folks just ain't never satisfied.

- as

[mudesi]

10. Not if it hasn't been banned in ALL public places, and in cars with children

Also including outside the doors to any public building.

That's when we will have won the "war" to not be given cancer by other people's selfish disregard for others.

[Occulus]

21. You've already "won" the "war" because

in CA, I think, there's a law about to go into effect prohibiting smoking IN APARTMENTS, if they share a wall, ceiling, or floor with another unit.

One company in MI will fire you if you smoke, and I believe that policy extends to family as well, i.e., NON-employees. Others companies across the country are doing or considering the same.

Yes, it will be ILLEGAL to smoke in your own home soon enough, and in one state apparently already is or will soon be. It's already starting.

All of us who smoke know just how disingenuous you anti-smoke zealots are. You want it banned- period. There's no "bars, restaurants, and public spaces" about it. And you ARE succeeding.

Here's to hoping someday something YOU do gets banned. Alcohol, maybe.

Oh, wait. WE ALREADY TRIED THAT. And you know as well as I how well THAT worked...

[abq e streeter]

24. More outstanding logic

and actually until the indoor smoking bans came along, something I like to do WAS banned: breathing air that doesn't choke me with carcinogenic toxins in order to be able to eat dinner or enjoy live music.

[Book Lover]

96. One town in CA, not the whole state

Belmont's city council adopted an ordinance this past September that bans tobacco smoking everywhere in the city limits except in single-family homes and their yards, and units and yards in apartment buildings, condominiums and townhouses that do not share any common floors or ceilings with other units. Also, smoking on city streets and sidewalks is permitted under the ordinance, except in the location of city-sponsored events or in close proximity to prohibited areas.

[Toots]

12. Where I live there is a ban on smoking within a certain number of feet of the entrance

to public buildings. That seems to be where the smokers congregate and a person has to walk through a gauntlet of smoke before entering the store. There are a couple of stores where it is so bad I refuse to shop there. Smokers just don't seem to realize how offensive their smoke really is or else they just don't give a darn for anyone other than themselves...Keep it in the privacy of your own home and I have zero problems with it...It is your life if you wish to smoke or not but please please don't bring it into my life......

[sam sarrha]

14. it is dangerous for people with medical problems but addicts dont give a shit for others suffering

[Clark2008]

98. You push us outside and still demand we move over?

I don't think YOU realize how offensive your demands are.

Geesch..

Get over your bad selves.

[sam sarrha]

13. th war wont be won till smoking in view of any minor child is illegal,tobacco is significantly more

addictive than heroin.. so why would anyone allow a drug that kills nearly 1/2 million people a year to be advertised in front of children... when the industry depends on addicting children to stay in business.

if someone is not addicted by the time they are 18 they will most likely never use tobacco.. because they have already allocated their money elsewhere.

people rightfully become angry about the american death toll in iraq, but big political campaign financing tobacco kills as many americans as the 'total' death toll in iraq...PLUS 1000 more..EVERY WEEK

where is the anger, the tears for the dead addicted as children..

i apologize for getting between anyone and their addiction with the truth

[High Plains]

18. Oh, Jesus Christ.

You want to make it a crime for a kid to see someone smoke?

Aren't you a bit fucking extreme?

I think it ought to be a crime to be forced to read drivel like that. So there.

[Occulus]

23. He, and the other zealots, are this extreme:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-10-03-smoking-bans_N.htm

Coming soon to a state near YOU.

[NashVegas]

60. Fascinating Thing About the Accompanying Photo

That woman looks like she can't be a day under 87.

[taterguy]

19. Smoking in view of any minor child? Really? What should the penalty be?

Let's run this true hypothetical past you:
Suppose I have relatives bringing their minor children to visit at my house.
Suppose I excuse myself and go down to my basement and enjoy a smoke.
Suppose one of their kids opens a closed door and sees me smoking a cigarette.
How long of a prison sentence should I serve?

[sam sarrha]

26. you missed the point... , none of you read the post to the end,

[taterguy]

27. I asked a simple question. You didn't answer it

And I'm the one with reading comprehension problems?

[Toasterlad]

31. I Read Your Post to the End. I Still Didn't See the Part Where You're NOT a Lunatic.

When I used to smoke, I always tried very hard to be considerate of other people. I would never think of smoking in someone else's home, I would always go outside. If I were out dining with friends I'd always insist on sitting in the no-smoking section, and go outside when I wanted a cigaretted. I never minded going outside to smoke at work, or while using public buildings. Even at bars, I tried to be careful about where my smoke was going. And yet, people like you still felt completely free to say rude things to me on the street, and accuse me of polluting "your" air.

You and people like you are 100,000 times more obnoxious than any smoker who has ever lived.

:smoke:

[Kingshakabobo]

44. Where are all these "considerate" smokers in the real world?

I was at breakfast last week and had to put up with a couple chain-smoking assholes at the table next to us. One after another, they kept lighting cigarettes............untill, of course, when THEIR food arrived. If I wasn't so repulsed by cigarettes, I would have borrowed one and blown smoke in their faces while THEY ate.

Or last night - we went out for a drink for my b-day. The girls at the table next to us held their cigarettes behind them and blew smoke behind themselves so as not to offend people at THEIR table. Never mind the fact they were blowing smoke in someone else's table.

I can't wait until January when Illinois bans indoor smoking at ALL establishments. All the "considerate" smokers will have nothing to bitch about.....right?.....since their main goal was to not offend?

[fizzgig]

45. of course your experiences means there's no considerate smokers

:eyes:

[Kingshakabobo]

46. I'm glad you get it!

:thumbsup:

[Toasterlad]

47. You Don't Notice the Considerate Smokers Because You Don't Smell Their Smoke.

You're not paying attention to the people that get up and go outside to smoke. You're focused entirely on the ones doing it in front of you (perfectly legally, I might add). And therefore, "all smokers" are inconsiderate in your eyes. There's a word for people who judge an entire category based on the actions of some...

If smoking bothers you so much, why the hell are you having breakfast and dinner in the smoking section? Are you trying to tell me that there's no place in your town to eat that's smoke-free?

[Kingshakabobo]

51. "that get up and go outside to smoke"

So it's settled then? You are OK with smokers going outside because you know it's obnoxious? The truly considerate smokers shouldn't have a problem with the law. I just can't understand the mentality of a person that would knowingly partake in an activity that nauseates and harms fellow human beings sitting nearby. Selfishness and addiction are the only reasons I can come up with.

BTW, the breakfast restaurant I was in was a one room restaurant with an imaginary barrier between the smoking and non-smoking section. I can deal with a little bit of smoke - it's not real pleasant when eating but I can deal with it. I just can't deal with a couple selfish chain-smoking assholes.

[Toasterlad]

64. I Think It's Commendable When Smokers Go Outside to Smoke When They Don't Have To.

However, I have no sympathies for people who go to places where they're likely to encounter smoke, and then whine because they encounter smoke.

I repeat: go somewhere else to eat if smoking bothers you.

[Clark2008]

99. I'm sure your restaurant owners aren't looking foward to that.

The high-scale restaurants in my city have reported serious revenue shortfalls since the smoking ban - but bars where you can still smoke (any place restricted to those 21 and older) and making a huge comeback.

No one stays for drinks any more in restaurants because of the ban and the wait staff and all those others you're trying to protect from the smoke are now suffering a loss of tips.

:shrug:

[Kingshakabobo]

100. Illinois is implementing it for bars AND restaurants.

See, that's the thing - The owners doing the right thing get screwed unless it's a statewide law. That's why it makes sense to implement the rule statewide. Chicago tried to split it between bars and restaurants but the state overrode.

[Riktor]

66. Nice jackboots

addictive than heroin...

Bullshit. Physical withdrawal from nicotine ends after 48-72 hours, depending upon how heavy a smoker you may be. The worst symptoms are irritability, headache, and sleeplessness. Heroin withdrawal can last up to a week and is known to be fatal in some cases.

Most people fail to quit smoking because of the availability of cigarettes. Unlike heroin, you don't have to hunt them down if you've had a bad day.



so why would anyone allow a drug that kills nearly 1/2 million people a year to be advertised in front of children.

This argument is groundless, tired, and utterly without merit, and has been used to justify similarly baseless attacks on movies, video games, and music.

How about obesity? Should we remove McDonald's commercials as well? How many people die in auto accidents every year? Would you object to your child watching an advertisement for a top-heavy SUV, or an overpowered sports car?



when the industry depends on addicting children to stay in business.

The number of juvenile smokers has been steadily shrinking for the past decade or so. Proper anti-smoking education is doing its job.



people rightfully become angry about the american death toll in iraq, but big political campaign financing tobacco kills as many americans as the 'total' death toll in iraq...PLUS 1000 more..EVERY WEEK

The leading cause of death in this country are "cardiovascular diseases", followed by infectious and parasitic diseases, followed by Ischemic heart disease, followed by the very, very broad category "CANCER".

Cardiovascular disease and cancer, while most certainly by-products of prolonged exposure to tobacco smoke, are similarly caused by a number of other factors, such as diet, genetic predisposition, and psychological illness.

Again, obesity is every bit as fatal as tobacco, yet there is no movement to ban eating junk food in public.



where is the anger, the tears for the dead addicted as children..

Where should the blame be placed, pray tell?

You assert advertising, though I believe this claim to be rather dubious. Rebelliousness embraces the taboo, and your "fear over education" approach to combating smoking may prove more destructive than helpful. Kids have the uncanny ability to sift through their elders' many layers of bullshit, and they know when they are being lied to. This is partly the reason as to why the D.A.R.E. program has been such an abysmal failure.

Trying to scare the shit out of kids isn't going to keep them from smoking. It hasn't kept them from getting tattoos, getting pierced, smoking pot, or drinking alcohol, so there is no reasonable expectation a similar tactic would put them off to tobacco.




i apologize for getting between anyone and their addiction with the truth

Such condescending tripe!

Contrary to your deluded interpretation of the "truth", I can't think of a single smoker who actually wants to see kids lighting up. This ridiculous demonization of addicts has defined the undoubtedly worthless "War on Drugs", and you're using the same bullshit tactic on smokers. Whether you choose to accept it or not, smokers aren't villains out to kill your children, they are people afflicted with a legitimate medical and psychological condition: addiction. Dehumanizing and ridiculing them is no different than doing the same to some poor unfortunate schmuck who is addicted to any of the other numerous chemicals peddled to the masses. Get off your high horse.

[williesgirl]

28. Why aren't all you folks advocating penalties for smoking in front of a child working to make

tobacco ILLEGAL instead of increasing fascism in the US in just one more form.

Do all us smokers a big favor - get it out of the stores and then we'll have no choice but to quit.

As long as it's still legal, everyone gets to make profits off of us while spawning more suggestions like those in this thread.

Flame away.

[abq e streeter]

30. because I believe completely in your right to poison yourselves,

just to not be able to force that poison on others secondhand. I'd never advocate banning the sale of cigarettes, and am for legalization of drugs etc. too. What substances you ingest in the privacy of your home is no one else's business as long as any negative effects, physiological or otherwise, from that use, stay there.

[sam sarrha]

32. tobacco is why we cant have universal health care, cause they say its subsidizing big tobacco

we cant afford it till something is done about the astronomical cost of tobacco caused illness..

[Toasterlad]

49. Oh, Please.

Don't forget about the fat people. They get blamed for the failure of the health care system, too. And all those gay people going around giving each other AIDS. And the violence on the movies and TV that leads to all those people getting shot every year.

You can't buy into one lame excuse and reject the others just because they don't fit your argument.

[abq e streeter]

50. Good point although I still believe in your individual right to poison yourself

by the way, I am utterly disgusted with the person on the other smoking thread who was so personally insulting to you and let them know it. I have been troubled by how many hateful, unbalanced people I've encountered (still a relatively small minority , thank god and/or goddess) on rare occasion directly , but more often just seeing their responses to others, in my short time on DU. But there have been enough of them that I sometimes wonder if DU is a place for me to be.

[pnwmom]

38. Because we already tried Prohibition, and it didn't work. n/t

[RB TexLa]

33. They'll be a little happy when they get this

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of tobacco within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

And they will probably smile a bit as they cheer on law enforcement when they get out and start "cracking skulls."

Of course then they will discover there are other things people like and a new campaign to save everyone from themselves will be started.

[Rosemary2205]

41. Yeeehahhh

First we take away your smokes, then we take away your eggs and bacon.

Bwwwwhahahahahahahaha




(sorry)

[americanstranger]

48. Not unless you pry them from my cold, dead, slimy hand!

(I like my eggs over easy.) :)

- as

[Alexander]

57. Restaurants are enclosed. No surprise people want a ban.

I had a 2-pack-a-day habit with Camel Filters. For a while there I would defend my cigarettes with my life if need be.

But I sure as hell don't want to be forced to suck in someone's fumes while I'm enjoying my dinner. I smoked outside and didn't once complain about it. Maybe you should try that.

[americanstranger]

58. That's exactly what I do. I have to, it's the law.

But I'll say it again. The fact that I have to go outside and smoke is not good enough for militant anti-smokers. They now want to prohibit me from smoking outside, and I think that's just selfishness on their part.

I am extremely accomodating of non-smokers. But some people don't know when to stop pushing the point.

- as

[Alexander]

61. Who has tried to ban outdoor smoking?

Do you have any links or sources which suggest there is a campaign to ban outdoor smoking?

"They now want to prohibit me from smoking outside, and I think that's just selfishness on their part."

I have been kicked out of open-air courtyards by some of these very people - and responded by blowing my cigarette smoke in their faces.

I know where you are coming from, and that such power-tripping fascists exist, but I have yet to hear about any nationwide outdoor smoking ban that's being proposed.

[Riktor]

62. California, for one

San Diego has banned smoking in all parks and beaches, and the state legislature is working on a smoking ban in apartment complexes.

[cushla_machree]

69. Beaches is a good idea

Smokers treat the beach like their own personal ashtray. I've worked on a beach, and let me tell you, the large percentage of trash, is from cigarette butts. It really is a big problem. If the town owns the beach, then by law they can ban smoking on it if they want. Enforcing it would be an issue. But it would cut down on the trash, which is important for the beach and the ocean.

Apartment bans, I don't think they will really pass. If an apartment wants no-smoking rooms, then thats their choice. Smoking indoors stinks up the place and will cost them money to clean when you move out, never mind the damage that could be done by a fire. Thats why college dorms also ban candles. A town forcing a ban on smoking indoors in peoples homes, i don't think it would get very far. So, getting hysterical over banning smoking in public restaurants inside....because it might lead to all indoor bans, come on.

[americanstranger]

74. Unfair generalization.

Smokers treat the beach like their own personal ashtray.

I do not smoke when at the beach.

This is what burns me. Most anti-smokers come out with 'smokers do this' and 'smokers do that.' You cannot possibly know every smoker, everywhere, yet you still insist upon these generalizations that all smokers behave exactly the same way.

We. Do. Not.

If you applied that type of reasoning to a religion or an ethnic group, you'd be called a bigot or worse. But somehow it's fine to do this with smokers as a group. Why is that?

- as

(Edited to avoid an unfair generalization of my own.)

[Riktor]

76. Yes and No

San Diego's reasoning for passing the bill falls in line with what the other fellow had mentioned. Cigarette butts are litter, pure and simple. While I will not qualify his gross generalization, I will say some smokers do not take notice as to where they toss their butts. Personally, I always carry a soda can filled with water where I extinguish my butts while driving and such.

While we are talking about double-standards, I must also add drug addicts to the list. A great many liberals take pride in their grasp of addiction, believing in treating addicts rather than punishing them. For some reason or another, smokers are not afforded this luxury. Apparently, people shoot heroin due to circumstance... smokers smoke because we're bad people.

[cushla_machree]

79. Hmmm

Well, at least a heroin addict gets high?What do smokers get out of smoking? Besides nicotine?I think people rag on smokers because its a socially acceptable form of drug use, but it kills people and is common knowledge.

People don't have high praises for people who are drunk all the time and obnoxious, but you can't get hurt from the breath of a drinker. Thats the rub there.

Smokers get mad because the general public gets angry at them, but smokers insist they have the right to blow smoke in your face, and if you don't like it, go away. There are many smokers who are respectful, and no one bothers them. Its the ones who are obnoxious who are the ones included in the generalization.

[americanstranger]

82. Oh, I give up.

You said this:

There are many smokers who are respectful, and no one bothers them.

But just before you said that, you said:

Smokers get mad because the general public gets angry at them, but smokers insist they have the right to blow smoke in your face, and if you don't like it, go away.

No. This smoker gets mad becuse this smoker does not insist that i have the right to blow smoke in anybody's face.

Even while you posit that 'respectful' smokers don't get bothered, you still insist upon attributing certain conduct to 'smokers.' not 'some,' not even 'most.' Just smokers.

Unfair generalization. And it seems like you didn't even notice that you did it!

- as

[cushla_machree]

84. why do "smokers" get so annoyed?

Maybe its because they know what they are doing, deep down, is stupid.

Why should I care? DO i really care if a heroin addict is offended if I think what they are doing is stupid? No. I give said person the permission to do whatever the hell they want, as long as it doesn't affect me.

Society is showing more and more, that they aren't going to tolerant smoking in public areas. We SHOULD discourage more people from getting hooked on smoking. Tobacco companies just make money off of getting their customers hooked on something, that more often than not, will lead to health issues or death. Why should we tiptoe around this lest we 'offend' someone?

Generalizing smoking, as a behavior, isn't the same as generalizing an ethnic group. Get real.

Let me get my little violin out, I will play you a sad tune, for all those smokers out there, that are offended by generalizations of their moronic behavior.

[americanstranger]

86. More compassionate liberalism.

Like I said, I gotta stay outta these threads.

Intolerance takes many forms, my friend. See ya.

- as

[Riktor]

91. Not so

Well, at least a heroin addict gets high?What do smokers get out of smoking? Besides nicotine?

Nicotine is a stimulant, and it produces a slightly euphoric effect. It is a subjective experience, as is any high, and as such, no words can adequately explain the experience. You'd have to try it and feel it for yourself, but I wouldn't recommend it.




I think people rag on smokers because its a socially acceptable form of drug use, but it kills people and is common knowledge.

The dangers of most illicit substances are fairly well known, but consumed nonetheless.



Smokers get mad because the general public gets angry at them, but smokers insist they have the right to blow smoke in your face, and if you don't like it, go away. There are many smokers who are respectful, and no one bothers them. Its the ones who are obnoxious who are the ones included in the generalization.

I'd have to call bullshit on that one. For some, harassing smokers is a power-trip, an easily personally-justifiable reason to berate a complete stranger. One of my coworkers makes it a point to stick her head out from behind closed doors to berate smokes who are outside, more than fifty feet away from the building. Keep in mind, the building is negatively pressurized, so all the windows and doors are kept shut.

There are obnoxious people of all different stripes, a great deal of whom annoy smokers as well. Personally, I loath SUV drivers who park next to my compact car, making it impossible for me see when I pull out from a space. However, that SUV driver has every right to occupy whatever open space he or she chooses, until a law is passed which will change things. So, if a smoker is smoking in a place where it is not explicitly forbidden, he or she DOES have every right to do so. While I avoid smoking around other people, some smokers lack that consideration. However, until it is addressed by law, you either have to deal with it or walk away.

[cushla_machree]

81. Because sometimes generalizations are true

What percentage of smokers use the ashtray in their car?

How many smokers bring ashtrays to the beach? Sure, those are all generalizations, but the reason they are there is because, a lot of smokers DO THEM.

Either, all the cigarette butts on the beach are caused by less than half of the smokers, or one jerk...OR most people are leaving them behind. I tend to think most people are lazy, so my inclination is over half are leaving behind their butts.

People make generalizations against smokers, and thats good. The public should not tip toe around smoking. We know it is bad for health, and while people are free to choose to do it, it should not be encouraged. Its a public health issue. Behaviors that hurt oneself or others, should be discouraged by society.

[americanstranger]

83. Okay, NOW we see the qualifications.

'a lot'... 'most'... 'some'... 'over half'...

I wouldn't get so steamed about this if people would qualify what they're saying a bit. But for cryin' out loud, read the anti-smoking posts. You'd think that there's a Smoker's Handbook Of Bad Behavior that they hand out when you buy a deck of smokes, and that all smokers follow the handbook, 100% of the time.

It ain't so.

- as

[cushla_machree]

88. well

I suppose, the attitude comes from people....who have encountered these behaviors. I think a large portion of it, is those who smoke really have no concept of how annoying it is.

If you smoke, you are used to it. If you don't, it is pretty much one of the most annoying things to deal with. It bothers me. It makes me feel sick just sitting in the near vicinity of someone who does it. When something provokes this reaction in you, this reaction that whatever is being done, makes me feel sick and is hurting me, you aren't really going to be nonchalant about it. Its a natural reaction. The body wants no part of it. And when a certain percentage of people, feel it is perfectly fine to do this around you, and get really angry at you for not liking what they are doing, it does grate on you. Its just annoying to hear smokers talk about how they have a right to do it. Yes you do, but only if it is hurting you. People would be annoyed at pot smokers if they blew it in everyones face were it legal.

[americanstranger]

63. I'm judging by the rhetoric on threads like these.

Someone actually suggested that there be penalties for people smoking in the sight of children.

Too far ain't far enough for some people.

- as

[stirlingsliver]

67. Not Really

Some of us will not be truly happy until smoking is made illegal.

There is no reason -- none -- why smoking should be allowed.

It always endagers at least one person's life, and usually endangeds the lives of more people than that.

The only reason it is still legal is that many governments live off the taxes on tobacco.

[abq e streeter]

71. I have been an anti-smoking activist

but I am absolutely against making tobacco illegal. To each his or her own poison; just don't force it on me. If you use it in a way that endangers no one's life but your own, then knock yourself out.

[Riktor]

77. Can you qualify that statement?

If you use it in a way that endangers no one's life but your own, then knock yourself out.

How can anyone engage in an activity in such a manner that no one else is effected?

For example, in getting behind the wheel of a car, you increase, statistically, the chances of causing harm to another person. Chances are you probably won't hurt anyone, but the possibility is there. Similarly, the chances of experiencing negative side effects from catching wind of second-hand smoke outside on a windy day are slim to none, but again, the possibility is still there.

[abq e streeter]

90. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure I can qualify it

It was just sort of a hypothetical. I don't know; in the privacy of your home etc...outdoors in an open space. And I did specifically say endangering other's lives; as opposed to simply affected. Just that I respect people's right to harm themselves if that's their choice. There are societal prices to pay from alcohol, junk food, watching fox news... but I'm thinking in terms of direct physical harm, i.e. second hand smoke. I'm real sleepy and not sure I'm expressing what I mean at this point. Good night Riktor and DU.

[Riktor]

92. In terms of direct harm

Most studies suggest the effects of second hand smoke are determined by concentration and duration of exposure. Consequently, being shut in a tight room with a hundred smokers for hours on end is more harmful than catching wind of cigarette smoke while outside on a walk. Even then, it takes prolonged exposure to illicit any serious side effects. You aren't going to inhale 100 ppm second hand smoke and wind up with lung cancer 40 years down the road. In fact, lung cancer only develops in about 10% of habitual smokers. Heart disease and emphezema get the rest, and both are the by-products of years upon years of smoking.

So, again, catching wind of cigarette smoke outside seems to pose more of a statistical degree of harm than, say, direct harm. If you're a speeder, you increase the chances you are going to hurt somebody while driving. If you're a smoker, you increase the chances of harming somebody by smoking amongst other people. There is little evidence to suggest YOUR second hand smoke specifically caused X amount of harm in bystander Y.

At any rate, I agree with your general premise. People should have the right to do what they want, so long as they do not harm or infringe upon the rights of any other person. However, where we draw the line on "causing harm" is a bit vague, and highly debatable.

Anywho, that's my two cents. Have a good night, man.

[onehandle]

70. Not until public distribution of poison is banned.

We're quickly heading that way.

Good.

[prolesunited]

87. What about alcohol?

That poisons and kills people as well. It also kills innocents as well. Wanna ban that as well?

[Riktor]

93. Don't confuse them with facts...

... they've got their minds made up.

[onehandle]

94. Nobody is forcing anyone to drink.

When you smoke in public, you're forcing others to smoke.

[Swamp Rat]

78. "Detroit putting in a bunch of bike lanes" - GREAT IDEA!!

:applause:

I wish that would happen in EVERY city in the USA. :D

[AngryAmish]

95. They won the war, now they just want to shoot the wounded

[Beerboy]

97. How did I not see this?

:smoke: