|
Toughest smoking ban yet passed in US (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
You've got a perfect point. But unfortunately the exact same reasoning can be used for non-smokers too. Whether you do or don't smoke, you can easily say "it's my right" and "if you don't like it, then leave." Therefore (flipping your argument around), just because there's a cool smoke-free place and you are inconvenienced because you're a chain smoker, it doesn't allow you to excercise your noxious habit over others' health.
With a growing awareness of physiological well-being in America, yes. Similarly, if you had an addiction to putting something loud in your ears and it bothered others, I think they would get the final say because they didn't ask for that stimulus. Bottom line is what you are doing is invading their senses. Hence, boomboxes are banned in many public places.
Take your own advice. If you smoke, you can exercise prudent judgement and NOT go to a smoke-free establishment.
From what I understand it was the smokers who imposed THEIR lifestyle on everyone in bars, clubs and restaurants to begin with. The non-smokers are just fighting back. Both sides use the, "if you don't like it, then leave" argument, but non-smokers currently have the edge with the health reasons.
Are you really coughing and getting sore throats everytime a car drives by? But I agree with you on that argument, and I'd pay a tax just for you. :) |
Well it's not exactly the same with the flip-sided argument. By exercising a complete public ban on smoking, smokers essentially have no choice at all. Whereas people who do smoke do have choices when it comes to avoiding smokers. For one, there are non-smoking sections of restaurants. Then there are smokeless bars. If people care so much about their health and factor in their concern to the places they go to than the demand for these places should increase and more proprietor’s would happily open smoke free establishments. My point is that non-smoking trends should be driven by consumers (and there’s no reason why it couldn’t be) not imposed on us by legislators. It should be the proprietor's choice as to whether his establishment should be smoke-friendly or smoke free. If people don’t mind the smoke environment than they’ll keep coming back. If people hate the smoke environment than they can go to smoke free places. If they hate it but still go back to the smokers place than I guess they don’t really care that much about their health or are willing to make that tradeoff for whatever reason. If enough people hate smoke friendly places than there’s no reason why there shouldn’t be a huge market for smoke free places.
With respect to my car analogy, I don’t have any immediate physical discomfort around them, but I’m probably going to feel the latent effects down the road …
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/...storyId=4857934
I must say though, it would be nice to go to a club and not smell like afterwards. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
Well i would suport a law similar to that here, but parts of it do seem to be a bit harsh. The problem here is that even though there should be a seperated non smoking section in all the restaurants in 99% of the places it loks something like this.
1. Its a single table with a non smoking sign on it thats seperated from the smoking section by 2 meters of air and sometimes a piece of wood that looks like someone shot it with a bazooka. And usualy there is an ashtryay on that table anyway
2. The non smoking section is directly above the smoking section, becouse of course all the smoke goes down right :whip:
Thats why i like spring so much, i like to eat outside, so that even if there is a prick sitting next to me smoking a cigar i dont smell it unless the wind turn just so that its blowing directly into me but that doesnt happen often. |
|
|
| Kapedan |
Jay? Why do you have to remind us all the time how gay you are? Why cant you keep it personal.
gay people..:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Kapedan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kapedano
Jake? Why do you have to remind us all the time how gay you are? Why cant you keep it personal.
gay people..:rolleyes: |
misspelled your name wrong, sorry :p |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kapedan
Jay? Why do you have to remind us all the time how gay you are? Why cant you keep it personal.
gay people.. |
Once they're not discriminated against perhaps. |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
No necessarily....just look across the border ;)
*Pfffffffffffffffffff* Hey officer! :p |
I heard you cant smoke at Guvernment anymore. Does that include weed? |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
Personally I quit smoking ( Cigareetes 4 years ago, and I haven't touched any weed in the past 2 years either ). If I could quit, then anyone else can too.
I would challenge anyone here that smokes ( cigarettes - lets stay on topic ) to answer these questions:
- Does smoking make my life better in any way, and how?
- Have you actually added up how much money you spend on cigarettes yearly?
- For Canadians: Are you aware that your smoking raises the health care costs for everyone? |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
| While I dont eat healthy & work out almost daily to up my lungs from second hand smoke, I think people should be free to smoke & up their health outdoors or in their own home, as long as they are responsible enough to make sure their childrens aren't breathing in huge clouds of second hand smoke. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kapedan
Jay? Why do you have to remind us all the time how gay you are? Why cant you keep it personal.
gay people..:rolleyes: |
Hey for brains, I didn't even mention my sexual orientation, I mentioned the smokers'. And if the person was a ghetto thug fat black chick, I'd point out her traits too. Just providing a visual. But if you really must point out that I'm gay, then I'm going to assume you're a fag too.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Once they're not discriminated against perhaps. |
Finally you said something that made me smile. :) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well it's not exactly the same with the flip-sided argument. By exercising a complete public ban on smoking, smokers essentially have no choice at all. Whereas people who do smoke do have choices when it comes to avoiding smokers. For one, there are non-smoking sections of restaurants. Then there are smokeless bars. If people care so much about their health and factor in their concern to the places they go to than the demand for these places should increase and more proprietor?s would happily open smoke free establishments. My point is that non-smoking trends should be driven by consumers (and there?s no reason why it couldn?t be) not imposed on us by legislators. It should be the proprietor's choice as to whether his establishment should be smoke-friendly or smoke free. |
this is exactly the line i used to take as well. but i think when you factor in the health risks to people that have to work in such an environment, it makes it a little different. i dont think you should expect someone (esp in the US with their crazily low minimum wage) to work in an environment with such negative impacts on their health.
i dont have a problem with banning smoking in enclosed establishments. but i draw the bloody line when it comes to smoking outside, on the street where (imo) smoking does little to no passive harm.
anywayz, can we all stop talking about it? its been 3 days and im craving like a mofo :( |
|
|
| Kapedan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
But if you really must point out that I'm gay, then I'm going to assume you're a fag too.
|
Yup, that must be it :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shamen DJ's
I heard you cant smoke at Guvernment anymore. Does that include weed? |
Smoking weed @ The Guvernment never stopped anybody; bylaw or not... |
|
|
|
|
