no smoking in public buildings???

JOEJOEJOE

Ahnimus wrote:

How many times have you been robbed by a smoker for smoke money?

Never, but my comfort and health has been compromised by smokers many times.

I am trying to gauge how far you would go to accomodate someone who has an addiction, since you feel so strongly about people feeling sorry for smokers who can't quit.

Ahnimus

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Never, but my comfort and health has been compromised by smokers many times.

I am trying to gauge how far you would go to accomodate someone who has an addiction, since you feel so strongly about people feeling sorry for smokers who can't quit.

I'm just trying to look at it realistically. Now, I've actually had my shit stolen by a heroin addict to support his addiction and I am equally sympathetic for him. The addiction of heroin is strong and though he tried to fight it, it did get the better of him.

Pearl Jam and toast

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm just trying to look at it realistically. Now, I've actually had my shit stolen by a heroin addict to support his addiction and I am equally sympathetic for him. The addiction of heroin is strong and though he tried to fight it, it did get the better of him.

The Dalai Lama says the path to happiness is through forgiveness after all.

JOEJOEJOE

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm just trying to look at it realistically. Now, I've actually had my shit stolen by a heroin addict to support his addiction and I am equally sympathetic for him. The addiction of heroin is strong and though he tried to fight it, it did get the better of him.

Having sympathy is one thing, but did you take any action against the thief?

JOEJOEJOE

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

The Dalai Lama says the path to happiness is through forgiveness after all.

It is good to forgive within reason, but if some victimizes you over and over, would you still forgive?

Pearl Jam and toast

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

It is good to forgive within reason, but if some victimizes you over and over, would you still forgive?

The dalai lama would say that kind of thinking will prevent you from ever being happy. It's not about worrying over what you're going to lose, it's about being content with your world. Plus, you can forgive someone without leaving yourself open to further being a victim.

Honestly, if you think someone else smoking outside or in their own residence is victimizing you you should take a huge look at your priorities. See a post I made a few pages ago. (don't feel like retyping).

Ahnimus

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Having sympathy is one thing, but did you take any action against the thief?

Not really. I didn't trust him as much around my stuff, but that's about it.

JOEJOEJOE

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

The dalai lama would say that kind of thinking will prevent you from ever being happy. It's not about worrying over what you're going to lose, it's about being content with your world. Plus, you can forgive someone without leaving yourself open to further being a victim.

Honestly, if you think someone else smoking outside or in their own residence is victimizing you you should take a huge look at your priorities. See a post I made a few pages ago. (don't feel like retyping).

I never mentioned that I worry about someone smoking at home. I worry about a smoker leaving puffs of smoke in my trail if I am walking behind them.

Does the dalai lama say that you should worry about other people's priorities?

If someone struck you once a week, would you keep forgiving them?

Pearl Jam and toast

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

I never mentioned that I worry about someone smoking at home. I worry about a smoker leaving puffs of smoke in my trail if I am walking behind them.

Does the dalai lama say that you should worry about other people's priorities?

If someone struck you once a week, would you keep forgiving them?

People are really to uptight about this whole thing..

Oh jesus someone walking near you, OUTSIDE, is smoking! Run for your life! Call Congress! We'll stop that monster!

If someone is actually blowing smoke at you say "Look asshole, blow your smoke the other way", but other than that it's no real bother to you except for possibly the smell. And you can't charge someone for leaving bad smells near you.

BenInTacoma

Let's BAN smoking. I mean it worked with alcohol and drugs right. Don't worry about the multi-billion dollar black market it created. Banning alcohol did not work, and neither will banning smoking. And if you think alcohol does not affect those around you, check out drunk driving statistics....

Collin

Sludge Factory wrote:

You may not choose to get addicted, but it was a choice to use the instrument of addiction in the first place (i.e. to start smoking).

When my dad started smoking, they didn't know it was addictive or bad, it was just something new and fashionable. Nobody knew about the negative effects, only 5 or maybe 10 years later the facts were published. So my dad's addicted and he never chose to use the instrument of addiction.

sponger

Collin wrote:

When my dad started smoking, they didn't know it was addictive or bad, it was just something new and fashionable. Nobody knew about the negative effects, only 5 or maybe 10 years later the facts were published. So my dad's addicted and he never chose to use the instrument of addiction.

I just find that kind of hard to believe. You are 19 yrs old. Let's say your dad is 50. Warnings on cigarette packs began in 1966. If your dad is 50, then he was about 10 years old when cigarette packs first had warning labels. I don't imagine he started smoking prior to that age.

Collin

sponger wrote:

I just find that kind of hard to believe. You are 19 yrs old. Let's say your dad is 50. Warnings on cigarette packs began in 1966. If your dad is 50, then he was about 10 years old when cigarette packs first had warning labels. I don't imagine he started smoking prior to that age.

My dad is 58, he started smoking when he was 14 and we don't live in the US. I tried to find out when they started putting labels on the packs here, didn't find any info.

sponger

Collin wrote:

My dad is 58, he started smoking when he was 14 and we don't live in the US. I tried to find out when they started putting labels on the packs here, didn't find any info.

They didn't start with the labels in Europe until the late 70's, so damn that sucks. Even if he lived in the states, he still started prior to labels in the states, so I guess it wouldn't have mattered if he lived in the States or not.

Ahnimus

sponger wrote:

I just find that kind of hard to believe. You are 19 yrs old. Let's say your dad is 50. Warnings on cigarette packs began in 1966. If your dad is 50, then he was about 10 years old when cigarette packs first had warning labels. I don't imagine he started smoking prior to that age.

I started smoking when I was conceived. My father smoked heavily while I was growing up. From the moment I was born I was consuming nicotine and growing a dependency to it, it didn't take much for me to become a smoker. You are also omitting the fact that most people, if not everyone, starts when they are children and children don't think far enough ahead to consider the consequences.

Obviously!! No one would start to begin with if they fully understood the addiction. You'd have to be a fucking moron not to realize that.

enharmonic

Smoking is not a right. If you need to smoke that bad, you can do it outside. I don't see the problem here.

It's sort of the inverse of drinking. You can go to a bar and have a beer, but if you're walking down the street with an open beer, that's a no-no...unless that street is part of a festival or environment that has obtained the neccessary permit to have open-air consumption.

Both of my parents smoked until I was in my 20s. I hated it. It was disgusting and I always smelled like complete shit because of it...so I never started smoking.

I think gov't is missing the point here. They have an opportunity to profit from this disgusting habit by creating a non-transferable license...just like a liquor license for commercial establishments. Only difference is that they could charge an annual fee for the smoking license...say $25,000 a year per license. Let the business owners who see such a huge profit from smokers pay for the right to offer services to smokers. That $25k pays for one employee who gets sick from constant exposure to smoke.

If it works in NYC, it cn work anywhere...anywhere. I have friends in the hospitality industry that cannot wait for this to pass down here. They hate smoke, but the money is good, so they do what they have to do.

Missed opportunity to put the decision into the hands of business owners if you ask me.

jeffbr

enharmonic wrote:

If it works in NYC, it cn work anywhere...anywhere. I have friends in the hospitality industry that cannot wait for this to pass down here. They hate smoke, but the money is good, so they do what they have to do.

Right. Your friends, by choice, work in a smoking establishment. The patrons, by choice, go to those smoking establishments. The business owner, by choice, allows smoking in their private establishments as a way of improving the bottom line. If they could make more money by making the place non-smoking they would have. Butts in chairs = more reveneue and as soon as they have to go out to smoke, the decision exists to re-enter the placeo or go somewhere else.

So instead of all of these groups being allowed to make informed choice, you are happy to have government mandate and coersion remove choice. It is a sad state of affairs when people have no self-reliance, and require the governement to make choices for them.

Pearl Jam and toast

jeffbr wrote:

Right. Your friends, by choice, work in a smoking establishment. The patrons, by choice, go to those smoking establishments. The business owner, by choice, allows smoking in their private establishments as a way of improving the bottom line. If they could make more money by making the place non-smoking they would have. Butts in chairs = more reveneue and as soon as they have to go out to smoke, the decision exists to re-enter the placeo or go somewhere else.

So instead of all of these groups being allowed to make informed choice, you are happy to have government mandate and coersion remove choice. It is a sad state of affairs when people have no self-reliance, and require the governement to make choices for them.

^^^

It's up to the individuals. You don't want someone smoking in the restaurant you're in? Go to a new restaurant.

Collin

enharmonic wrote:

It's sort of the inverse of drinking. You can go to a bar and have a beer, but if you're walking down the street with an open beer, that's a no-no...unless that street is part of a festival or environment that has obtained the neccessary permit to have open-air consumption.

What's wrong with having a beer and walking down the street?

enharmonic

jeffbr wrote:

Right. Your friends, by choice, work in a smoking establishment....blah blah blah

So instead of all of these groups being allowed to make informed choice, you are happy to have government mandate and coersion remove choice. It is a sad state of affairs when people have no self-reliance, and require the governement to make choices for them.

First of all, they are not establishments whose sole intent is to allow smoking. Smoking is permitted there, but that is not what the establishment, or my friends are there for.

Second, I have no problem with it, since NYC is close enough for me to make a trip if I want to go clubbing (which is exactly what I do). If Baltimore wants to be a knuckle dragging troglodite of a city, I'm happy to let Darwin have the smokers and their shitty, stinky clubs. All I'm saying is that the solution is a lot simpler than an outright ban. Create a smoking license that public establishments can purchase annually.

Smoking has been proven to be a detriment to personal and public health, but if an establishment whishes to profit from the behavior, they should have that right...at a price.