Now I'm mad

[Vorago]

i didnt say you had to leave, im just saying that i think if your in a bar, smoking is part of that package, and you really have no reason to be offended when people are smoking...you dont have to leave, you just have to put up with the smoke...its not really a big deal

I'll just leave it at this, it's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[Geoff St. Germaine]

when i started this forum i never thought it would put smokers against non smokers. my point was that more and more of our freedoms are being taken away. to ride in a car i have to wear a seat belt- freedom taken away. people cant smoke- freedom taken away. the list goes on. so people forget about your differances and look at the big picture.

I think that people should be allowed to not wear a seatbelt, except for children. I mean, that would just increase the number of organ donors. As far as a freedom to hurt other people... that isn't a freedom.

 

[DbNBassist]

I think that people should be allowed to not wear a seatbelt, except for children. I mean, that would just increase the number of organ donors. As far as a freedom to hurt other people... that isn't a freedom.

There was an advert here in UK awhile ago and it stated that if u r in the back seat not wearing a seatbelt and u are in a crash u will actually kill the person sitting infront of youy and not urself.

Edit: Even if the person in front is wearing a seatbelt

 

[Sonic_Death]

I definitely think everybody should wear a seatbelt no matter what. Although, this is a longshot, but maybe people would drive more carefully not wearing a seatbelt for fear of greater injury from an accident.

I mean we have the privlege of driving cars, thus I feel that if states want to enforce stipulations on those privileges, especially ones that I don't see why people wouldn't do, so be it.

 

[Matt Fat Cat]

I actually read a few pages of this thread since I left off.... sheeze... you guys are x-factor extreme!!!

Morf- this thread is fueled mostly with disdain for smoking (which I understand, I hate it myself). So trying to make a convincing logical arguement is like pissing in the ocean.

SMASH- I want to say alot of things, but will only say this. You are adimant in your beliefs.

I think the initial point is being lost. The govt. doesn't give a **** about your health execpt maybe for you to live in order to pay more taxes. The laws banning smoking are an intrusion of personal freedoms. If you don't see past your nose, then you will produce emotional responses, ie most of the respoonses of this thread.

Should I as a business owner not be able to choose if my clients can smoke a cigarette or cigar if they wish to? Of course I should... bottomline. Nobody is in harm from secondary smoke, although many of you would like to believe otherwise. Does smoking stink... yes, of course it does. Do I like it... no I hate it. Do I tolerate smokers and most people I meet on a daily basis... yes, of course I do. There... when we talk it out it's very simple. If you don't like smoke, don't go to places where people smoke. But you say smokers should cater to you? Do smokers go to non-smoking establishments and barter the rules, mostly not I'd say. Most smokers would say, "****, let's not go there you can't smoke!" End of story.

And since when is a privately owned business a "public" place? IT'S NOT!! It's public if I open my doors to you. And you follow the guidleines/rules of the business. Get it.

If it's smoking in "public" now, what is it next? Is smoking "outside" not public?

 

[Geoff St. Germaine]

Nobody is in harm from secondary smoke, although many of you would like to believe otherwise.

Can you post your medical qualifications that enable you to make such an assertion? Additional research evidence from peer reviewed medical journals would also be useful. You sound like you work for a tobacco company. I'm calling BS.

 

[Matt Fat Cat]

Can you post your medical qualifications that enable you to make such an assertion? Additional research evidence from peer reviewed medical journals would also be useful. You sound like you work for a tobacco company. I'm calling BS.

My medical background is 3 years of medical school and currently a 3rd year nursing student working toward CRNA. I have some knowledge of pathology and so forth. Since testing on humans would be unethical, it's likely you'll not find exactly what you're asking for. I'll search some scholarly's when I have a chance and get back to you. ITMW, if you can find the counterindicative research we can start there. Keep in mind, we are talking minimum to moderate exposure to cigarette smoke on an infrequent basis. Of course constant, close-quarter, high volume exposure will increase risk for pneumonic pathogens.

 

[morf]

First and foremost, I'll assume that English is not your first language. Assuming that, you might want to edit some of your last post. Plus, remember that humor is a subtle thing, assuming again that that is what you were going for.

In regards to the above, this isn't about leaving anyone out, which is the point I think you're not seeing. Everybody is welcome at whatever is the public place in question. What is not welcome is harming others.

So come on down to the bar with me, I'll gladly buy the first round. But if you want to inflict harm onto yourself, you will need to do that where it doesn't harm others.

And I am nothing if not honest...

So what is not welcome is harming others and everybody should be welcome at a public place even if it is a smokers only place - meaning you are saying that us smokers should in fact simply not be allowed to get together for a drink and smoke because you're also allowed into that very place, be it you tolerate smoking (since its not forbidden there). I cant help but laugh at that. Sounds like communism.

 

[morf]

Again you're talking about smoking as if it was a right. It's not. It never was. People being allowed into any public place without risking physical harm is. As stated before, your rights end where others begin. You have no rights being taken away- they are merely enforcing the rights of people who don't want to get sick that were already there. Speaking from a non-smoking state, the smokers all still go to the bars. They just don't blow smoke on everyone else inside now. Now everyone can go to every bar or restaurant. Bands can play in any bar or restaurant and not have to worry about their instruments get stunk up or yellowed. No one has to get left behind because they'll go into an asthmatic fit if they're surronded by people smoking. And if the smokers can't go without their addiction for too long, they can just take a twenty foot walk outside, then come back.

I dont agree. I believe that if the place is a smoker "only" place, or where people who do not smoke can come if they tolerate smokers, then it should be allowed. You people are saying that smokers should not have the right to get together at ANY bar or public place to drink and smoke. Thats ridiculous.

 

[morf]

To recap : I've demonstrated your views amount to the condoning of random assault and destruction of property, at best with the only mitigating factor being that someone such as perhaps a bar owner says it's ok. That's anarchy, and I simply said in an anarchic society you're as at risk as anyone. Speaking of "disses" and cheap shots, you somehow twisted that into saying I'm actually threatening you online. Twice.

So let me get this straight, according to your world view, if you smoke indoors, you're an anarchist and you should be ready for consequences, anarchic ones, to befall upon you. lol.

An extremist is someone who argues that unless it's proven people are eventually dying of something then they shouldn't be offered the enforcement on long-entrenched rights and protections. That's essentially been your argument repeatedly, and you haven't disproven my contention it's extremism. Instead you offered a "rolleye smiley".

I have indeed. I gladly accepted to smoke in a smoker only room, or go outside if any of those was possible. They're not. I even accepted there be smokers only bars and pubs, but that apparently violates your own right to go there because we'll all be smoking, so thats also not possible. Point is, you want to isolate every smoker and not let us get together for a drink. Thus the rolleye smiley.

As for my avatar, I go to over 100 shows per year and to pubs maybe another 20-50 times in addition, and play all my own gigs on top of that. So what? No smoking here indoors for about a decade, no loss of attendance (increased actually), nothing but glee from smokers they can go outside for "fresh air". Bars can have a separate indoor smoking room if they choose, the vast majority do not and those that do are generally low-rent.

If theres no smoking where you are what are you complaining about??? Why are you arguing in this thread? Somehow, I dont believe for a second that most bars in your region have a non smoking policy and are doing better because of it.

You haven't addressed issues of assault and destruction of property, unless you count "if you don't like it then run away" which I personally do not score as a lucid rebuttal.

I have not responded to your suggestion people put themselves at risk by entering because it's self-evident. Of course they do. That doesn't make it right or moral they should have to just to be in public place as already deemed logically and legally, and it doesn't make it legal per already long-existing laws of workplace safety, assault, destruction of property, and outside of the law just simple common courtesy and human decency for that matter.

So smokers should have the decency to not smoke in public places even those that are for them exclusively, while you do not have the common decency to let us get together for a drink and have a smoke. Ok.

You've said you're a smoker. Do you smoke in your own home? If so, do you pretend there's no damage to you carpet, drapes, and posesssions whether you blow smoke directly on them or not? I'm not asking if you choose to accept this damage, or if it totally destroys your posessions over time and if any studies can prove it - just asking if you realize it without a doubt occurs.

I smoke in my own home. The only "damage" I've yet to notice is cold smoke smell. Nothing I own has ever been damaged by smoke, at least not as far as I can see, and I do quite alot of electronics, build computers, and of course play bass, so would there be any I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed it. Not saying it never happens, but so far so good as far as I'm concerned. And I dont see how me destroying my own stuff is any of your concern in the first place...

 

[morf]

Your analogies are terrible. The risks you are talking about other than smoking are all things that are illegal for people to do, such as the anal rape you describe. Can you come up with a risk caused by other people to your person/property in public that isn't illegal or that the person causing the damage wouldn't be liable for?

Thats besides the point. Sure, my smoke can cause you harm, but only if you're there. You decide if you want to go to a smoking allowed place or not, and there are more public places that dont allow smoking than those that do. Youre saying there should be no place where smoking is allowed just so you could be able to go anyplace you like, even though us smokers would then not be able to go anywhere else.

 

[morf]

Morf- this thread is fueled mostly with disdain for smoking (which I understand, I hate it myself). So trying to make a convincing logical arguement is like pissing in the ocean.

I know but somehow I just love seeing them getting all rilled up on smoking when they're all for the right to bear arms. I dont know I get a kick out of it

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Ah Bob. Always nice to see you take sides, or should I say, the other side

My "right" to smoke isnt a "right" its a privilege. I'd like you people to understand that smokers dont believe for the most part that they have a right to smoke. As for it being theft of anyone else's well being, seeing how people choose to go to places where they know people will be smoking, they themselves choose to be in harm's way, and that is called taking your responsabilities. I would indeed like to take my smoke outside, or in the smoking room, but down here you pay 15-20 euros to get in a club and you're not allowed back in without paying again if you go outside. That, and there are no smokers only rooms. I would be more than happy to smoke away from you people, but I don't really have a choice in the matter, I either smoke and try to blow as little smoke as I can towards you, or I dont smoke for the maybe 7 hours I spend in a room drinking. My choice is made, and if you think banning smoking everywhere will solve problems, think again. Not only will bar owners, IMHO, not abide to that law, but if they do, they will lose so many clients that they'll most likely have to shut down.

Yes, you must take your responsibilities, and not others' well-being. If you go to a club frequented by people who like to beat up others, and the owner happens to like the bullies and not the victims, are the beatings the victims' fault? By the logic you present, it would seem to be their fault for choosing to enter a place where they will be assaulted.

Private businesses that are open to the public are commonly regulated in some ways as public accommodations, with certain attendant health and safety standards.

 

[morf]

Yes, you must take your responsibilities, and not others' well-being. If you go to a club frequented by people who like to beat up others, and the owner happens to like the bullies and not the victims, are the beatings the victims' fault? By the logic you present, it would seem to be their fault for choosing to enter a place where they will be assaulted.

That is beside the point. If the "victims" as you call them, go to the club KNOWING they will get beat up, but still go, it seems to me they either want to go, or would be willing to take the chance. That does not make them victims anymore in my eyes, since they willingly go for a fight.

Private businesses that are open to the public are commonly regulated in some ways as public accommodations, with certain attendant health and safety standards.

Indeed so, but there are lines that shouldnt be crossed either. There are still more deaths caused by alcohol than there are caused by tobacco, do you intend to ban alcohol everywhere? No? Why not? Because it is something which you enjoy doing, although it is bad for your health. There are more health problems due to weight problems in america than there are due to cigarette smoke, do you intend to close up every fast food joint in the country?

I thought americans where against communism???

 

[Chunk-O-Funk]

Thats besides the point. Sure, my smoke can cause you harm, but only if you're there.

Wouldn't you agree that it's a good idea to take people out of harms way. Even if were to incovienence a few people.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

That is beside the point. If the "victims" as you call them, go to the club KNOWING they will get beat up, but still go, it seems to me they either want to go, or would be willing to take the chance. That does not make them victims anymore in my eyes, since they willingly go for a fight.

So keeping certain people out of clubs and bars by intimidation is okay?

Ideed so, but there are lines that shouldnt be crossed either. There are still more deaths caused by alcohol than there are caused by tobacco, do you intend to ban alcohol everywhere? No? Why not? Because it is something which you enjoy doing, although it is bad for your health. There are more health problems due to weight problems in america than there are due to cigarette smoke, do you intend to close up every fast food joint in the country?

How is this relevant? You are responsible for your well-being; I am responsible for mine. If you eat doughnuts and get fat, that's your fault; if you try to force me to eat doughnuts, too, you're trespassing. Period.

I thought americans where against communism???

What does communism have to do with this?

 

[burk48237]

NOTHING OFFENDS ME MORE THEN A BUNCH OF SELF IMPORTANT ELITES IMPOSING THEIR MORALITY ON ME!!

1) There is not ONE documented case of someone getting cancer from second hand smoke (and yes I am aware of the canadian waitress case which is very dubious medically)

2) One of the big arguments that people who believe in the bill of rights made about smoking bans and lawsuits was that it would never end, that fatty foods would be next. We were laughed at, told that was preposterous, but we were RIGHT. NYC is thinking of banning transfat oils as we debate. No surprise there, self righteous do gooders don't come with a stop button!!!!

Why stop there? Here are a few suggestions for bans that actually make MORE logical sense then smoking and trans fat bans.

1) Ban all loud music in clubs, install a limiter on all amplification systems that limits all live music to 100DB. A 100 watt limit on bass amps would be a great place to start. Damn it, I can even document hearing damage, unlike the myth of second hand smoke!

2) Limit the top speed on all vehicles except police cars to 75mph. The speed limit is seventy, more people will DIE on the highways by the time your done reading this then have died from second hand smoke in my lifetime.

3) Ban Kiddy pools, it is a documented fact that kiddy pools cause more childhood deaths then accidental firearms deaths. I think we should send the kiddy pool inspectors over to your house today.

4) Limit alcohol consumption and purchases to the equivalent of two drinks and all alcohol purchases must be registered and cleared through an instant check system to eliminate straw purchases and multiple purchases. Again the threat of drunk driving is real, not to even mention the untold emotional damage and health damage from alcohol. At least most fat people are happy.

All of these ideas are just as logical as a complete "public places" smoking ban or banning transfats.

As a point of interest I HATE being around smokers in a club. I hate the smell, it irritates my eyes, and sometimes gives me headaches. So what? Who the hell am I to demand that a club owner who worked, invested, risked his finances, paid taxes on his place of business has to cater to my preference? It is selfish, self righteous, arrogant, and far ruder then any smoker, for me to try to impose my morality on his business.

 

[Matt Fat Cat]

NOTHING OFFENDS ME MORE THEN A BUNCH OF SELF IMPORTANT ELITES IMPOSING THEIR MORALITY ON ME!!

1) There is not ONE documented case of someone getting cancer from second hand smoke (and yes I am aware of the canadian waitress case which is very dubious medically)

2) One of the big arguments that people who believe in the bill of rights made about smoking bans and lawsuits was that it would never end, that fatty foods would be next. We were laughed at, told that was preposterous, but we were RIGHT. NYC is thinking of banning transfat oils as we debate. No surprise there, self righteous do gooders don't come with a stop button!!!!

Why stop there? Here are a few suggestions for bans that actually make MORE logical sense then smoking and trans fat bans.

1) Ban all loud music in clubs, install a limiter on all amplification systems that limit all live music to 100DB. A 100 watt limit on bass amps would be a great place to start. Damn it, I can even document hearing damage, unlike the myth of second hand smoke!

2) Limit the top speed on all vehicles except police cars to 75mph. The speed limit is seventy, more people will DIE on the highways by the time your done reading this then have died from second hand smoke in my lifetime.

3) Ban Kiddy pools, it is a documented fact that kiddy pools cause more childhood deaths then accidental firearms deaths. I think we should send the kiddy pool inspectors over to your house today.

4) Limit alcohol consumption and purchases to the equivalent of two drinks and all alcohol purchases must be registered and cleared through an instant check system to eliminate straw purchases and multiple purchases. Again the threat of drunk driving is real, not to even mention the untold emotional damage and health damage from alcohol. At least most fat people are happy.

All of these ideas are just as logical as a complete "public places" smoking ban or banning transfats.

As a point of interest I HATE being around smokers in a club. I hate the smell, it irritates my eyes, and sometimes gives me headaches. So what? Who the hell am I to demand that a club owner who worked, invested, risked his finances, paid taxes on his place of business has to cater to my preference? It is selfish, self righteous, arrogant, and far ruder then any smoker, for me to try to impose my morality on his business.

Preach it Brother Burk!!!!

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

I dont agree. I believe that if the place is a smoker "only" place, or where people who do not smoke can come if they tolerate smokers, then it should be allowed. You people are saying that smokers should not have the right to get together at ANY bar or public place to drink and smoke. Thats ridiculous.

Why? Smokers do have the right to go anyplace, as they are people. They simply do not have the right to smoke there. Your addiction does not entitle you to risk harming others in public places.

 

[Cambass]

In regards to the trans fat thing, I don't see how this isn't a benefit to society. Restaurants can still serve their food and people can still go and eat Big Macs'.