RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much?

RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 2:20:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver We've been here before, a car driver pollutes the local atmosphere with more carcenogens than a passing smoker. No one complains about streets full of cars spewing out carcenogens into the atmosphere which is why I tend not to take raving anti-smokers seriously. There are plenty of smokers here in Amsterdam and as I walk round the city I don't get cigarette smoke wafting in my face. Since the last thread on here about smoking I took note as I walked around of how many times I could smell smoke or had it wafting in my face. The only way I could contrive to get smoke wafting in my face would be to fuck a smoker. However, car fumes were everywhere. Maybe the car fumes were masking the cigarette smoke? We have and there's more mileage in this one! Your side of the coin was pretty much the same i.e. you compared smoking with car fumes. I don't see why the two have to be discussed together. It sounds like you're saying smokers should be allowed to do as they wish because car drivers are allowed. I don't see why, and how, they are a package deal.

NorthernGent -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 2:22:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy I havent researched the law fully as I aim to be unaffected by it in the very near future. Although a quick google does give the impression that yet the proposals have undergone some watering down as is becoming usual. Wise to do some research then before arriving at a conclusion. I can tell you for a fact there is no proposal to ban smoking in working men's clubs, private members' clubs etc.

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 2:23:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent We have and there's more mileage in this one! Your side of the coin was pretty much the same i.e. you compared smoking with car fumes. I don't see why the two have to be discussed together. It sounds like you're saying smokers should be allowed to do as they wish because car drivers are allowed. I don't see why, and how, they are a package deal. Er.. you (I think it was you) were complaining about passive smoking taking a couple of years off a person's life, well since this is a big concern to you I don't see how you can say smoking and car fumes are not a package when you will be breathing in carcenogens from traffic fumes or are carcenogens in traffic fumes benigh? Actually I haven't had a cigar since New Year so this smoking thing is not a big deal to me in that respect, it is the puritanical nature of the people who want to ban things that piss me off because most of the time it appears to be about their ability to impose their will on other people rather than the reasons they put forward for banning something.

swtnsparkling -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 2:37:27 AM)
quote: smoking and car fumes are not a package when you will be breathing in carcenogens from traffic fumes Traffic fumes -industrys smoke stacks pollute the air far more than cig smoke

BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 2:51:45 AM)
Thats just sucks,pretty soon we won't be able to drink a beer on our property.AS a non smoker married to a pack and a half a day wife we have worked out our a solution..she only smokes in her attached office and the kitchen and I only dip snuff out side smiles..kidding about the snuff I quit last year...WE are america aren't we then we should take a stand..Our home is our castle what we do within should be our business,,WILLIAM

sleazy -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 2:56:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy I havent researched the law fully as I aim to be unaffected by it in the very near future. Although a quick google does give the impression that yet the proposals have undergone some watering down as is becoming usual. Wise to do some research then before arriving at a conclusion. I can tell you for a fact there is no proposal to ban smoking in working men's clubs, private members' clubs etc. Having taken the choice to quit the watering down of legislation became of only incidental interest to me. Please note that the examples you offer are NOT techinically public places. They are of restricted access.

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 2:57:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: swtnsparkling quote: smoking and car fumes are not a package when you will be breathing in carcenogens from traffic fumes Traffic fumes -industrys smoke stacks pollute the air far more than cig smoke The last time I went for a medical, the doctor asked me the inevitable question 'Do you smoke?'. I said the occasional cigar and waited for the expected lecture. He just said, it's something I have to ask you and went on to say, the whole smoking debate is irrational and that in Holland the percentage of smokers and none smokers that get lung cancer and serious heart desease is about the same, which suggests something else is at work and no one appears to be looking for it. By chance I saw a doctor (who smoked) on British TV reciting a bunch of statistics that were similar, that society's preoccupation with smoke is preventing serious debate on what is actually causing lung cancer and heart desease because the supposed increased chances of smoking giving you either should show a marked difference in the statistics but they don't. You have only a slightly less chance of getting either desease than someone who smokes 20 cigarettes a day. He went on to explain how health proffessionals skew the statistics to prove something that isn't at all so clear cut. When asked if he was in the pay of the tabacco industry he laughted and said no but he wondered what industry was benefiting from the preoccupation society has with smoking.

MsSonnetMarwood -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 3:04:21 AM)
quote: In California landlords already discriminate against smokers, and for good reason. Nicotine is damaging to the property. In my apartment a heavy smoker lived for a number of years. The smell of the nicotine still comes through the vents when I turn on my air or heat after it has not been in use for a while. In my bathroom there is nicotine seeping through the paint. It took several scrubbings for me to get the nicotine off the unpainted surfaces (cabinets and doors. It has been cleaned before I moved in, but was so disgusting they gave me half off my first month's rent to reclean this off after I showed the manager. Private property, it is up the discretion of those who own it what goes on there. They restrict pet ownership for the same reasons. It seems fair to me that landlords would want to reduce fire insurance and maintenance costs by only renting to nonsmokers. Very true. I've been in the homes of heavy smokers before, and frankly, without stripping the place down to the floorboards and removing the drywall and replacing all of the upholstered furniture, you were NEVER going to get rid of the cig smell in the house. The smell was overwhelming in the rooms they predominantly smoked in, so that even if at that time they weren't actually smoking, they may as well have been it was so strong. The problem with a heavy smoker in an apartment (or other rental) is not only are you doing damage to the carpets, the walls, etc., but it also gets into the adjacent apartments. It's common for hotels to offer smoking and non smoking rooms because once you've smoked in a room, it's really hard and really expensive to eradicate the smell of cigarettes.

swtnsparkling -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 3:19:50 AM)
quote: quote:MeatCleaver smoking and car fumes are not a package when you will be breathing in carcenogens from traffic fumes Traffic fumes -industrys smoke stacks pollute the air far more than cig smoke I meant for my post to say I agreed. LOL mind wondered

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 4:06:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: swtnsparkling quote: quote:MeatCleaver smoking and car fumes are not a package when you will be breathing in carcenogens from traffic fumes Traffic fumes -industrys smoke stacks pollute the air far more than cig smoke I meant for my post to say I agreed. LOL mind wondered LOL I know but sorry for giving the impression I thought you didn't. Just wanted to add while I'm here. My doctor and dentist, both of who like Cuban cigars, both (they are both friends) point out that while the decline and delay in to older age groups of both respiratory and heart desease corresponds with the decline in smoking, the decline in both deseases corresponds better with the decline of industrial pollution and improvement in the environment. Moderation in all things applies to smoking as with any other activity, whether eating or whatever the vice.

NorthernGent -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 4:42:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent We have and there's more mileage in this one! Your side of the coin was pretty much the same i.e. you compared smoking with car fumes. I don't see why the two have to be discussed together. It sounds like you're saying smokers should be allowed to do as they wish because car drivers are allowed. I don't see why, and how, they are a package deal. Er.. you (I think it was you) were complaining about passive smoking taking a couple of years off a person's life, well since this is a big concern to you I don't see how you can say smoking and car fumes are not a package when you will be breathing in carcenogens from traffic fumes or are carcenogens in traffic fumes benigh? If you're only argument is traffic fumes are more dangerous than passive smoking then you're simply presenting a case for environment friendly transport. You're not putting a case forward for non-restricted smoking. The thread is about smoking, not transport. For example, your stance is like arguing rape is ok because murder is far worse and murders are committed. Smoking is not relative to transport and rape is not relative to murder - the rights and wrongs are determined on an individual basis, there is no comparison with a less or more heinous offence.

Sinergy -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 6:20:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver We've been here before, a car driver pollutes the local atmosphere with more carcenogens than a passing smoker. No one complains about streets full of cars spewing out carcenogens into the atmosphere which is why I tend not to take raving anti-smokers seriously. Actually, all sorts of people complain about car pollution, ship pollution, coal plant pollution, etc. Sinergy

Mercnbeth -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 6:23:34 AM)
quote: you compared smoking with car fumes. I don't see why the two have to be discussed together. NG, And you compare smokers to serial killers and thieves: quote: NG: I doubt anyone believes an individual such as a serial killer should be allowed to do whatever he wants and kill a few people. I doubt anyone believes an individual should be allowed to break into your home and steal your possessions. Is your comparison any more relevant? quote: Koukei: Second hand smoke kills!!! Name one person it has killed. The first time it does it will be front page news. It's a theory, no basis in fact. Smokers live to 100 non smokers die at 30 of lung cancer. If it is contributory to death, so are thousands of other foods and drinks. A woman in LA just died of an overdose of water. I think some here would support a law limiting your water intake and labeling the tab with a warning label. quote: California landlords already discriminate against smokers Discrimination for a legal activity, discrimination against a person's legal and free choice used to be illegal. Now the momentum is to make illegal activities legal and criminalize choice, access, and freedom. quote: Actually I haven't had a cigar since New Year so this smoking thing is not a big deal to me in that respect, Considering MC's post I can't represent I'm a non-smoker. I too enjoy a fine cigar. Partagas is my preference, Cuban when out of the country.

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 6:26:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent We have and there's more mileage in this one! Your side of the coin was pretty much the same i.e. you compared smoking with car fumes. I don't see why the two have to be discussed together. It sounds like you're saying smokers should be allowed to do as they wish because car drivers are allowed. I don't see why, and how, they are a package deal. Er.. you (I think it was you) were complaining about passive smoking taking a couple of years off a person's life, well since this is a big concern to you I don't see how you can say smoking and car fumes are not a package when you will be breathing in carcenogens from traffic fumes or are carcenogens in traffic fumes benigh? If you're only argument is traffic fumes are more dangerous than passive smoking then you're simply presenting a case for environment friendly transport. You're not putting a case forward for non-restricted smoking. The thread is about smoking, not transport. For example, your stance is like arguing rape is ok because murder is far worse and murders are committed. Smoking is not relative to transport and rape is not relative to murder - the rights and wrongs are determined on an individual basis, there is no comparison with a less or more heinous offence. Ja Meine Fuhrer. To be honest it doesn't really bother me because I still maintain people like to ban things because they can, not because they need to which is why people want to ban smoking in places they don't even frequent.

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 6:34:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent If you're only argument is traffic fumes are more dangerous than passive smoking then you're simply presenting a case for environment friendly transport. You're not putting a case forward for non-restricted smoking. The thread is about smoking, not transport. For example, your stance is like arguing rape is ok because murder is far worse and murders are committed. Smoking is not relative to transport and rape is not relative to murder - the rights and wrongs are determined on an individual basis, there is no comparison with a less or more heinous offence. As Merc pointed out, passive smoking is a theory that has not been proved, especially when passive smokers appear to drop dead quicker than actual smokers. If you rape and murder somebody you have actually raped and murdered them and is pretty irrelevent to the debate.

mymasterssub69 -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 6:43:40 AM)
in Chicago - you have to stand at least 15 to 25 ft away from building entrances while smoking outside ...there are certain restuarants (some bars included) where you cannot smoke ...basically Chicago is leaning towards becoming smoke-free. there are a few suburbs who have become or are considering smoke-free ordinances. there's also legislation in IL to make the ENTIRE state smoke-free. now i don't smoke however i know many who do and they have my sympathies. it's time for the govt to butt out of our personal lives. if someone wants to smoke in their own domicile or vehicle then they should without fear of being arrested and/or fined. i don't think major cities (like Chicago) have the extra man power in the police dept to visually inspect every vehicle to see if someone is smoking or not. we have a mobile phone law here which makes it's illegal to drive and chat on the mobile at the same time unless it's hands free. as citizen do i get the right to pull a squad car or city public works truck over because i saw them chatting on their mobile while driving (and nope it wasn't hands free) however they expect us to comply with the city law when those who are suppose to enforce it break it themselves. sorry about the rant

Lovinitall -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 7:30:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Koukei Not a smoker. I don't believe smokers should be allowed to smoke in a public area [ Bar, casino, ect. ] because you can go outside and smoke! AND YES. Second hand smoke kills!!! However, your own home... I dont care what you do in your own house. You paid for the place... ~Koukei MonStar~ I love this attitude. A business owner invests money and time building what they hope to be a succesful enterprise, and some group comes along and tries to make the rules for them. Regarding private business, this is my attitude: - As long as no special license is required and no laws are being broken, a private business should be allowed to operate as it chooses. Though smokers may comprise only +/- 20% of the overall population, in entertainment-realted industries (bars, casinos, etc.), this number increases significantly. Non-smokers have a choice -- don't patronize the business if their policies regarding smoking (or anything else, for that matter) offend you. - Smoking should be banned in publicly-owned buildings - Smoking should not be banned in outdoor areas (No smoking on the beach in Ca? Give me a break......) - I would support a law that made the sale and distribution of cigarettes illegal. After all, we all know that smoking kills. This attitude of "having our cake and eating it, too" makes me more ill than second-hand smoke. The government wants to reap the economic benefits of the tobacco industry, but they also want to protect the health of the "innocent". Sorry, can't do both....... - Listen closely, folks. Every time a right is taken away from anyone, it affects everyone. Don't get me started on 9/11 and the violations of our civil liberties that have stemmed from that event. Have a great day! ~ Faye P.S. I am a non-smoker.....I've always felt tobacco products were disgusting!

demetermother -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 7:48:24 AM)
smoking on the beach? and where do the butts go? in the water. pollution, destruction. just stupid people who don't give a crap about anything. their addiction is more important to them than anything. they run out of cigarettes or can't find them, and the world has come to an end until they get more. its a waste of money, and for what? It makes your heart pump faster, your blood pressure rise, it destroys small blood vessels, and causes lung disease. hmmmmm . . . . WTF are they thinking??????

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 8:04:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: demetermother smoking on the beach? and where do the butts go? in the water. pollution, destruction. just stupid people who don't give a crap about anything. their addiction is more important to them than anything. they run out of cigarettes or can't find them, and the world has come to an end until they get more. its a waste of money, and for what? It makes your heart pump faster, your blood pressure rise, it destroys small blood vessels, and causes lung disease. hmmmmm . . . . WTF are they thinking?????? Talk about myopia! If I was you I would worry about your consumption of oil products if you are so concerned with pollution and destruction.

adaddysgirl -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 8:06:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: demetermother smoking on the beach? and where do the butts go? in the water. pollution, destruction. just stupid people who don't give a crap about anything. their addiction is more important to them than anything. they run out of cigarettes or can't find them, and the world has come to an end until they get more. its a waste of money, and for what? It makes your heart pump faster, your blood pressure rise, it destroys small blood vessels, and causes lung disease. hmmmmm . . . . WTF are they thinking?????? What are they thinking? They're thinking for someone to make a first post and call a group of people stupid is a bit ignorant. Ya think? [8\|] Daddysgirl

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125