NYC Smoking ban extended

polaris_x

the few friends i have that smoke approve of smoking bans in restaurants ... when they sit down and eat - they don't want to have to inhale the toxic substance either ...

know1

polaris_x wrote:

know1 wrote:

But people can decide on their own if they want to frequent a business that allows smoking or not.

Statistics are always very misleading, too. 74% of them are made up on the spot.

Second-hand smoke

Second-hand smoke is what smokers exhale and what rises from a burning cigarette, pipe or cigar. People exposed to second-hand smoke have an increased risk of lung cancer. Second-hand smoke is a main risk factor for lung cancer among non-smokers.

Second-hand smoke is also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), or involuntary or passive smoking.
Second-hand smoke contains the same chemicals as smoke that is actively inhaled.
No amount of exposure to second-hand smoke is safe.

from cancer.ca

although heidijam is correct in the Radon exposure stat ... but similiar to asbestos ... there are regulations against this stuff ... not unlike a ban ...

are you guys so hell bent on personal freedoms that public safety is never a consideration? ... perhaps i should be allowed to ahve a pet lion and be allowed to go wherever i want ...

Again, there are many sides to statistics. It may be the second leading (or now "main risk factor"), but how many non-smokers get lung cancer? I'm not trying to dispute you, just saying there are other ways to look at things.

I just wish a business could decide whether they want smokers or not rather than have the government dictate it.

In this thread, I already said I wish we could just ban the littering that comes from smoking so I'm not for total personal freedom.

polaris_x

know1 wrote:

Again, there are many sides to statistics. It may be the second leading (or now "main risk factor"), but how many non-smokers get lung cancer? I'm not trying to dispute you, just saying there are other ways to look at things.

I just wish a business could decide whether they want smokers or not rather than have the government dictate it.

In this thread, I already said I wish we could just ban the littering that comes from smoking so I'm not for total personal freedom.

what side of "No amount of exposure to second-hand smoke is safe" are you concerned with?

businesses can't decide who they serve alcohol to ... you have to be of the legal drinking age ... businesses also can't serve unproperly handled or cooked food ... this is an issue of public safety ... are you against this?

edit: honestly, i can see how people want to protect their "freedoms" but smoking? ... this is where one draws the line? ...

Blockhead

dunkman wrote:

will she die a horrible and protracted death because she sniffed in some perfume?

Are you saying every person exposed to second hand smoke gets cancer? Last i checked you can easily die from allergic reaction if seroius enough. So whats yoru point, the slowness of how you die now factors in what we should ban?

Blockhead

dunkman wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

dunkman wrote:

nobody has ever caught cancer from passive soil handling...

I didn't know smokers locked you in their car when they smoke, if you are around someone smoking and you don't like it, use your legs and walk away. The world does not revolve around you and your annoyances, If my wife gets a allergic reaction at a resturant then we leave, since we have that choice, everyone does...

why do you leave the restaurant? why doesn't the fat lazy smoker walk 20 paces to an outside designated area so they can smoke, then come back and finish their meal?... that way the restaurateur doesn't need to lose any business at all... whereas he's just lost yours.

smokers are so selfish of other people... if i walked around with human shit rubbed into my hair I'd expect to be removed from a restaurant or a bar... but smokers think they have the right to blew their cancer into other peoples faces.

selfish.

haha, you just went on a rant about being selfish and you wan't to ban something that annoys YOU... Great logic there. We left the restraunt due to my wifes alergic reaction to some perfume/fragrance, and since we are unselfish people we realized that those people were their first enjoying their meal and did not have the intention of harming us even though there is the possibility, so we simply made a choice to leave because we don't impose our annoyances over/on others. If you are so offended by smoke, why would you go to a place that allows smoking, and then complain about it. You sound like one of those people who goes out to get drinks at a cigar bar and complains about the cigar smoke.

know1

polaris_x wrote:

what side of "No amount of exposure to second-hand smoke is safe" are you concerned with?

businesses can't decide who they serve alcohol to ... you have to be of the legal drinking age ... businesses also can't serve unproperly handled or cooked food ... this is an issue of public safety ... are you against this?

edit: honestly, i can see how people want to protect their "freedoms" but smoking? ... this is where one draws the line? ...

Nothing people do in this life is safe. Saying that "No amount of exposure to second-hand smoke is safe" doesn't say anything of substance. It's like saying "No amount of driving a car is safe".

Since you're going to nitpick, I suppose I should clarify and say that I do not think underage people should be legally served alcohol, so what I meant to say is that I wish business could choose allow people who are of age to smoke if they want. And to ban them if they want to as well. I assumed most people would understood that was what I meant. I guess that's what happens when you assume.

polaris_x

HeidiJam wrote:

haha, you just went on a rant about being selfish and you wan't to ban something that annoys YOU... Great logic there. We left the restraunt due to my wifes alergic reaction to some perfume/fragrance, and since we are unselfish people we realized that those people were their first enjoying their meal and did not have the intention of harming us even though there is the possibility, so we simply made a choice to leave because we don't impose our annoyances over/on others. If you are so offended by smoke, why would you go to a place that allows smoking, and then complain about it. You sound like one of those people who goes out to get drinks at a cigar bar and complains about the cigar smoke.

if perfumes are ever deemed to be even half the public safety issue smoking is ... i'd be more than happy to see a ban ...

dunkman

HeidiJam wrote:

dunkman wrote:

will she die a horrible and protracted death because she sniffed in some perfume?

Are you saying every person exposed to second hand smoke gets cancer? Last i checked you can easily die from allergic reaction if seroius enough. So whats yoru point the slowness of how you die not factors in what we should ban?

no i'm not saying that as you can see from my previous posts where i have never typed the words "every person exposed to second hand smoke gets cancer".

now second hand smoking has been proven to kill many many thousands of people... I don't know the actual stats of people dying from Chanel No 5 being sprayed to close but i'm guessing it's pretty low.

laws like this are passed for the common good... a law banning perfume spraying would only really help about 4 people.

pandora

dunkman wrote:

pandora wrote:

oh to be so easily amused.

It's delightful Dunk you should try it

dunkman

HeidiJam wrote:

If you are so offended by smoke, why would you go to a place that allows smoking, and then complain about it. You sound like one of those people who goes out to get drinks at a cigar bar and complains about the cigar smoke.

I don't need to worry about that... Scotland (and the UK) banned smoking in all public places many years ago...

now thats the case in NY and I for one think its amazing. well done.

dunkman

pandora wrote:

dunkman wrote:

pandora wrote:

oh to be so easily amused.

It's delightful Dunk you should try it

sounds like something an old smoker would say to a young non-smoker.

mikepegg44

dunkman wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

why are cigarettes even legal, why make all these laws limiting their use to basically your closet, that is unless you live in an aparment. If it is illegal to do it everywhere, why are they legal? I cannot for the life of me fiure out why cigs are legal and I cannot go buy a joint from the gas station.

I understand the health risks, I cannot believe people still do it, but it isn't up to the government to make that choice so half assed...They basically are saying, "we still want you to buy the cigarettes, we still want all that tax money, but ....you cannot actually use the cigarettes anywhere."

New york city is such a cool place, I cannot believe the people there put up with this non-sense

it just got even cooler imo.

for a minute there I thought you were talking about smoking!!

I think smoking in doors should be regulated a bit, as it is a proven health risk to the employees(don't really care about the patrons who choose to be there). Not so sure that a little cigarette smoke outdoors at a park is saving someones life. Remember this new ban actually involves the outdoors now, parks....the beach (who the fuck wants to enjoy a nice day at the beach with a cigarette anyway) ... these are all out doors, I have a hard time believing the amount of smoke coming from cigarettes outdoors is really any more damaging than what you already breathe in new york city. This is less of a public safety law and more of a public annoyance law...there is a big difference in my opinion.

dunkman

ok the beaches and parks is perhaps slightly too heavy handed... I'm more concerned about the actual littering of the butts. I say concerned i mean disgusted...

i've been on the beach before making sandcastle with the kids and they have scooped up a cigarette butt... fucking disgusting...

it's akin to the Pope finding a used condom in his meal.

polaris_x

know1 wrote:

Nothing people do in this life is safe. Saying that "No amount of exposure to second-hand smoke is safe" doesn't say anything of substance. It's like saying "No amount of driving a car is safe".

Since you're going to nitpick, I suppose I should clarify and say that I do not think underage people should be legally served alcohol, so what I meant to say is that I wish business could choose allow people who are of age to smoke if they want. And to ban them if they want to as well. I assumed most people would understood that was what I meant. I guess that's what happens when you assume.

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/tip-sh ... hand-smoke

driving a car has it's risks sure but how you drive the car is the primary risk ... that is why we have laws against drunk driving, speed limits, seat belts, no texting, etc ... the amount of regulation on driving is quite significant you do know? ... do you propose there be no regulation there either?

i'm not nitpicking at the age ... thanks for assuming that's what i was referring to ... :roll: ... i am just pointing out that many public spaces like restaurants already work within guidelines borne from public safety issues ... this is just another ...

are you in favour of getting rid of all the regulations?

know1

polaris_x wrote:

know1 wrote:

Nothing people do in this life is safe. Saying that "No amount of exposure to second-hand smoke is safe" doesn't say anything of substance. It's like saying "No amount of driving a car is safe".

Since you're going to nitpick, I suppose I should clarify and say that I do not think underage people should be legally served alcohol, so what I meant to say is that I wish business could choose allow people who are of age to smoke if they want. And to ban them if they want to as well. I assumed most people would understood that was what I meant. I guess that's what happens when you assume.

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/tip-sh ... hand-smoke

driving a car has it's risks sure but how you drive the car is the primary risk ... that is why we have laws against drunk driving, speed limits, seat belts, no texting, etc ... the amount of regulation on driving is quite significant you do know? ... do you propose there be no regulation there either?

i'm not nitpicking at the age ... thanks for assuming that's what i was referring to ... :roll: ... i am just pointing out that many public spaces like restaurants already work within guidelines borne from public safety issues ... this is just another ...

are you in favour of getting rid of all the regulations?

No. I already said I would favor stricter enforcement of littering laws, didn't I?

There needs to be some laws to protect people from each other, but I do not believe banning an otherwise legal substance from everywhere including outside should be done. I also think smoking v. non-smoking is just one more way a business can differentiate itself from its competition.

pandora

dunkman wrote:

pandora wrote:

dunkman wrote:

oh to be so easily amused.

It's delightful Dunk you should try it

sounds like something an old smoker would say to a young non-smoker.

ouch...below the belt ...and I think you know I don't smoke....
I'm just for personal freedom, this will never change with me

I think Scotland has gotten accustomed to the loss of personal freedom.
That's just my opinion which we all have the right to still have....
hopefully that won't be banned anytime soon.

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/tip-sh ... hand-smoke

driving a car has it's risks sure but how you drive the car is the primary risk ... that is why we have laws against drunk driving, speed limits, seat belts, no texting, etc ... the amount of regulation on driving is quite significant you do know? ... do you propose there be no regulation there either?

i'm not nitpicking at the age ... thanks for assuming that's what i was referring to ... :roll: ... i am just pointing out that many public spaces like restaurants already work within guidelines borne from public safety issues ... this is just another ...

are you in favour of getting rid of all the regulations?

FYI. This article has to do with smoking outside. I am sorry but there is no correlation between speed limits regulations, and texting bans that = safety.

dunkman

pandora wrote:

I'm just for personal freedom, this will never change with me

I think Scotland has gotten accustomed to the loss of personal freedom.
That's just my opinion which we all have the right to still have....
hopefully that won't be banned anytime soon.

i too am for personal freedom... which kinda highlights your ignorance of another countries innate sense of freedom... fuck, even William Wallace in Braveheart shouts FREEEDDDDDOOOOMMMMM

i believe my personal freedom includes the right to not be shot (whole other thread) as well as not possibly die as a result of second hand smoke being blown about in a bar. I believe my and others personal freedom includes the right to live a long and decent life.

is it really too much for a smoker to walk 20 paces to a doorway and smoke a 3 minute ciggie and then come back into a smoke-free bar? really... is that too much to ask?

oh.. by the way... America restricts personal freedom more than Scotland... give me an example of where you are more freer than I.

blackredyellow

The banning of smoking indoors is great in my opinion... Employees and patrons shouldn't be subjected to obvious health risks like that.

But as far as outdoor places like parks, etc., it's going too far. But they should enforce littering laws for smokers... people who casually throw butts everywhere makes me irate and I want to smack them in the head with a 2x4 when I see it.

In my opinion, smoking is such a disgusting habit. We just had a baby, and my inlaws bought us a pack of diapers. Nice, right? But they smell like a cigarette filter just because they were in their house and we can't even use them because it makes up both sick.

eyedclaar

dunkman wrote:

pandora wrote:

I'm just for personal freedom, this will never change with me

I think Scotland has gotten accustomed to the loss of personal freedom.
That's just my opinion which we all have the right to still have....
hopefully that won't be banned anytime soon.

i too am for personal freedom... which kinda highlights your ignorance of another countries innate sense of freedom... fuck, even William Wallace in Braveheart shouts FREEEDDDDDOOOOMMMMM

i believe my personal freedom includes the right to not be shot (whole other thread) as well as not possibly die as a result of second hand smoke being blown about in a bar. I believe my and others personal freedom includes the right to live a long and decent life.

is it really too much for a smoker to walk 20 paces to a doorway and smoke a 3 minute ciggie and then come back into a smoke-free bar? really... is that too much to ask?

oh.. by the way... America restricts personal freedom more than Scotland... give me an example of where you are more freer than I.

Can you buy a 75 round drum for your AK-47 and go on a killing spree anytime you see fit? Huh? Can you? Huh?

*wipes tear from cheek

God bless America!