TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Smoking Bans in the U.S. (and abroad)
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

That's nothing- California now is trying to ban smoking on the beach.
There is already about 5 beaches in San Diego that ban smoking on the beach- now some yahoo is trying to make it statewide.

Next they will ban smoking on freeways.

i think they should ban smoking worldwide for everyone who is going to be born after june 22 2004 @00:00GMT!! that way no one wont be addicted anymore in the next century!

quote:

Originally posted by djshan i think they should ban smoking worldwide for everyone who is going to be born after june 22 2004 @00:00GMT!! that way no one wont be addicted anymore in the next century!

seriously

Yup, because everyone who smokes is addicted. Just like everyone who drinks is an alcoholic and everyone who smokes pot is a pothead, and everyone who drives a car mows people down and everyone who eats fast food becomes morbidly obese. Let's just ban everything, because someone somewhere can abuse it. Sounds great!

Why do we have this urge to shelter ourselves by stooping down to the lowest common denominator?

quote:

Originally posted by djshan that way no one wont be addicted anymore in the next century!

Anybody catch the double-negative here? "No one will not be addicted anymore" means "Everyone WILL be addicted".

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Yup, because everyone who smokes is addicted. Just like everyone who drinks is an alcoholic and everyone who smokes pot is a pothead, and everyone who drives a car mows people down and everyone who eats fast food becomes morbidly obese. Let's just ban everything, because someone somewhere can abuse it. Sounds great!

Right...so why is it so hard to quit smoking if its not addictive Besides i dont remember seeing a paerson that had a need to always drink or to run people down with their car, however i see a lot of people getting really nervous if they hadnt smoked for a while, and it gets worse and worse as the time increases. If that isnt an addction i dont know what is.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Fair to whom? To you? To non-smokers? What about the owner of the restaurant? He owns the property and everything under the roof--if people want to go there shouldn't they abide by the house rules? I find it much more unfair to invade the physical property rights of the owner of the establishment. Rights anyone? Supply and demand will dictate the atmosphere in the end.

Notice that I said only a part of the restaurant. The owners of the restaurant are forced to do a number of things regarding safety of their guests, like the fire escape exits I mentioned earlier. Is it an owner's right to have a restaurant in an unsafe building? What if there are structural errors that the owner decided are not worth fixing and a roof falls on your head? It's the owner's right not to have a safe roof, right? He'll get sued for it, but you unfortunately might end up injured for life.

There are also some things which people are not allowed to do regardless of whether the owner of the estate agrees with that or not. What if an owner of the restaurant decided it's ok to have brawls and fights between his guests? So an unsuspecting person comes in and gets punched in the face. Is that ok? That person could have stayed outside of the restaurant for a minute or two, checked if there was anything troublesome going on and then decided whether to come in or not.

It is ok to have a restaurant that's for smokers, but there should be some government action that would encourage non-smoking restaurants, otherwise even if 1% of the people are smoking, it's enough to cause unsatisfaction in the rest 99% of the people.

Wow neo, didnt know you were in Columbus...I am here too. The smoking ban is totally from the deal in Toledo, where alot of the bars are just snubbing their noses at the law. Thereve been something like 200 citations since the law went into effect.

Smoking should be the choice of the bar/club/restaurant owner. If they want to have both smoking and non-smoking, they should have seperate ventilation. but banning it totally is an insane violation of rights and should be stopped. If non-smokers dont liek a place to allow smoking, I feel their will be plenty of non-smoking places avaliable for them.,...

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Right...so why is it so hard to quit smoking if its not addictive Besides i dont remember seeing a paerson that had a need to always drink or to run people down with their car, however i see a lot of people getting really nervous if they hadnt smoked for a while, and it gets worse and worse as the time increases. If that isnt an addction i dont know what is.

I never said smoking can't be addictive...everything can be addictive to the right person. I'm saying that just because someone can abuse a certain drug or situation doesn't mean that it should be banned for everyone. If that were the case everything would be illegal. And if you have never seen an alcoholic or a morbidly obese individual, you're lucky. I'm a health care worker and I see both smokers, alcoholics and the morbidly obese everyday. Of the three I would much rather deal with a smoker going through nicotene withdrawl then an alcoholic suffering delirium tremens or an obese individual that sucks money from the health care system faster than any late stage lung cancer patient. Everything is relative, but if we only concentrate on the extreme negatives of a situation, including smoking, nothing would be legal, because there is always a way to make something harmful...I'd love to give examples if you like them.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I never said smoking can't be addictive...everything can be addictive to the right person. I'm saying that just because someone can abuse a certain drug or situation doesn't mean that it should be banned for everyone. If that were the case everything would be illegal. And if you have never seen an alcoholic or a morbidly obese individual, you're lucky. I'm a health care worker and I see both smokers, alcoholics and the morbidly obese everyday. Of the three I would much rather deal with a smoker going through nicotene withdrawl then an alcoholic suffering delirium tremens or an obese individual that sucks money from the health care system faster than any late stage lung cancer patient. Everything is relative, but if we only concentrate on the extreme negatives of a situation, including smoking, nothing would be legal, because there is always a way to make something harmful...I'd love to give examples if you like them.

In the same way that consuming too much of anything always seems to lead to or cause a cancer of sorts.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I never said smoking can't be addictive...everything can be addictive to the right person. I'm saying that just because someone can abuse a certain drug or situation doesn't mean that it should be banned for everyone. If that were the case everything would be illegal. And if you have never seen an alcoholic or a morbidly obese individual, you're lucky. I'm a health care worker and I see both smokers, alcoholics and the morbidly obese everyday. Of the three I would much rather deal with a smoker going through nicotene withdrawl then an alcoholic suffering delirium tremens or an obese individual that sucks money from the health care system faster than any late stage lung cancer patient. Everything is relative, but if we only concentrate on the extreme negatives of a situation, including smoking, nothing would be legal, because there is always a way to make something harmful...I'd love to give examples if you like them.

Well i agree with you on the point that just becouse someone can abuse the drug it should not be banned for everybody. The trouble with smoking is that when you smoke you force it on everybody else either they like it or not. For instance if you get drunk your not hurting anybody, well unless you throw up on the floor, beat up somebody or get into a car and drive around a bit, but those are extreme cases...not rare, but you wont beat up somebody after one drink. But in the end you are not forcing your drink to everybody. If you smoke however, everybdy has to smell it.

I woudnt have such a grudge agains smoking if the idea of seperated places for smokers and nonsmokers actualy worked, but too may times i have seen a waiter bringing an ashtray to a person in a nonsmoking section just becouse he asked for it, and then when i complained about it they either ignored me or said it wasnt any of my busines And its not just restaurants, a person cant go out for a good time without coming home without his lungs full of smoke and clothes stinking as if he workedin the damn tobacco factory.

To go back to abusing, the sad thing is that there are to many people abusing this drug. Honestly i fell (and im 110% sure im right) that at least over here, non smokers are a minority. I know how bad alcoholism is (as i said i havent seen one yet, but i have family and friends that work in health care and they talk...) but i wery much doubt that in any country non alcoholics are a minority. Yes alcoholism is bad, but having a few family members and family friends die of lung cancer even though they havent smoked a day in their lives is bad as well.

Well I cant say I'm particularly well-informed about all this, but it sounds like a good idea to me. I would love to go to a club or a bar and breathe clean air. And it would also create a big incentive for people to stop smoking, if they knew that they couldn't smoke for hours if they want to go out one night.

People should obviously be allowed to do as they please in their own home, but in places of work or social events, where there will be both smokers and non-smokers, it would be a good idea to make it non-smoking, although facilities should be provided for the smokers to smoke.

All of this sounds great of course, but to be honest, I think the governments make so much money with the taxation of cigarettes and cigars that they will never completely ban smoking, however bad for people's health it is. Many places will remain a smoke-fest, with or without a law that says otherwise. So really I dont think smokers have much to worry about.

Just for the record, I'm a non-smoker.

quote:

Originally posted by Streakfury Well I cant say I'm particularly well-informed about all this, but it sounds like a good idea to me. I would love to go to a club or a bar and breathe clean air. And it would also create a big incentive for people to stop smoking, if they knew that they couldn't smoke for hours if they want to go out one night.

The government shouldn't be in the business of forcing people to stop smoking by making private organizations change their practices. Unless the government wants to make smoking illegal, they should not be telling private individuals what can and can't be done on their property. If you want to visit a club or bar that does not have air heavy with smoke, find a non-smoking establishment. If none exists, find other means to create one, such as boycotts or the like. Allow the consumer to speak, and if the consumer wants to smoke, and the business owner wants to allow it, that consumer and owner should also have their voice heard.

After all, if the government really wanted to improve people's health, they would ban alcohol and saturated fats in food products. Alcoholism and obesity/heart disease lead to far more health care dollars spent then second hand smoke. The majority of people that work in smoky environments are smokers, and the insignificant amount of second-hand smoke that a patron would inhale during a "night out on the town," is well documented. The only people that have been found to have even an association with increased disease in relation to second-hand smoke are those who live with smokers or those who have worked an entire career in a smoking environment. I urge you to show me a scientific report with a meaningful population size that shows outlawing smoking in private businesses does anything for the long term health of a population.

The government can tell establishments to ban smoking in their main business areas, which causes them to send customers to a separate area. If they shift business to this separate area where the true revenue is coming in and scale back the nonsmoking venue, then they get caught in a Catch-22. The non-smokers are relegated outdoors and the smokers are once again indoors. Governmets need to worry about bigger things.

Just FYI for everyone here, the City Council here in Columbus passed the smoking ban with only one dissenter stating the opinion that was mostly used here: That the government should not be regulating what owners can/can not do on their own private property. It will be interesting to see if this is overturned, or if perhaps smokers will unite to see that this issue gets on the ballot to allow for a truly democratic representation of how Columbus thinks

Whaddaya think of this?

Australian Government Approach

quote:

Australia Cigarette Packs to Show Graphic Photos Fri Jun 25, 7:55 AM ET Add Oddly Enough - Reuters to My Yahoo! SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australian smokers will soon have to look at the picture of a cancer-ridden lung or a gangrenous foot missing toes each time they light up. Following a trend pioneered by Canada, the government said it wants cigarette companies to put graphic pictures and warnings on 30 percent of the front of each pack and 90 percent of the back. One gruesome photo shows a color cross-section of a diseased lung. Another shows a blackened foot missing a toe and the rest twisted. "Smoking causes peripheral vascular disease," it reads. A third shows a dissected, bloodied brain with the caption, "Smoking doubles your risk of stroke." "The experience in Canada showed there was a three percent drop in smoking," Trish Worth, parliamentary secretary for health, told reporters. Canada introduced the warnings and pictures of diseased organs in late 2000. But Australian cigarette makers say the move will not alter smoking patterns, and one called it a desperate tactic. Health Minister Tony Abbott said cigarette companies would have 18 months to make the changes once the government announces them officially. Anti-smoking groups denounced the government for "caving in" to the tobacco lobby and mandating only 30 percent of the packet's fronts for photos, instead of 50 percent as in Canada. "Concessions to the tobacco industry of smaller warnings on the front of cigarette packs and delaying their introduction is a bad decision," said Alan Coates, chief executive of the Cancer Council Australia. The government first set a date of June 2005 for the changes but cigarette makers said they needed longer. Manufacturers said the move was detrimental. "The use of medically pornographic images," had little impact on Canadian smoking levels, said Peter Richards, managing director of Imperial Tobacco Australia Ltd. "This proposal is simply a desperate tactic designed to placate anti-smoking zealots as opposed to sensibly addressing the communication of the health risks associated with smoking," Richards said in a statement.

EU has that already, for quite a long time actually i think

i think it's funny esp in the stores =) good tooo

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.