But, smokers require, on average, much more healthcare when they get old, and the government often foots the bill with our tax dollars, so, yes, it is everyone's business!
I pay for my own insurance so no one is footing my bill.
What about obese people. They require a greater amount of healthcare so should we tell all resturaunt that they can no longer serve fattening foods.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
But, smokers require, on average, much more healthcare when they get old, and the government often foots the bill with our tax dollars, so, yes, it is everyone's business!
This sounds like a great argument for sterilizing welfare mothers, or even couples who don't have the financial means to care for their offspring.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Enacted into law in my home province a few years ago...best thing ever had done...PLUS....it went against the common perception that bar/restaurant owners always say..."we will lose business"....sorry folks once again stats from they very same business owners showed over a period a year following a few months of decreased attendance....the amount of business went up....its a good law and should be enforced everywhere IMHO.....
Well yeah..more people in society don't smoke cigarettes, and for good reason.
Cigarette smokers are the minority. So what most people (and the gov't) see as common sense, smokers call incessant whining and unfair discrimination.
Smokers have no valid argument except for just complaining about it for the sake of complaining, and pointing fingers.
it's been a looong time coming..
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I pay for my own insurance so no one is footing my bill.
What about obese people. They require a greater amount of healthcare so should we tell all resturaunt that they can no longer serve fattening foods.
Food doesn't kill you...eating too much or being addicted to it is the problem.
There is no safe level of cigarette smoke...
It's the people that can't control themselves that are the problem
...like smokers...lol
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Well yeah..more people in society don't smoke cigarettes, and for good reason.
Cigarette smokers are the minority. So what most people (and the gov't) see as common sense, smokers call incessant whining and unfair discrimination.
Smokers have no valid argument except for just complaining about it for the sake of complaining, and pointing fingers.
it's been a looong time coming..
I find it funny that not one smoker on this board has stated that they dislike this law because it is discrimination against them, not one. You even have non-smokers who are stating the samething I am. The only people I see whinning are a few, not all, of the non-smokers.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I find it funny that not one smoker on this board has stated that they dislike this law because it is discrimination against them, not one. You even have non-smokers who are stating the samething I am. The only people I see whinning are a few, not all, of the non-smokers.
Who's whining? ...I'm only stating facts...you can choose to see what you want. If you think smokers don't feel somewhat alienated , infringed upon, and discriminated against you're sadly sadly (sadly) mistaken...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Who's whining? ...I'm only stating facts...you can choose to see what you want. If you think smokers don't feel somewhat alienated , infringed upon, and discriminated against you're sadly sadly (sadly) mistaken...
I don't care that some or many smokers may feel that way. It is ridiculous for them to feel that way because no one is prohibiting them from smoking. Their arguement doesn't have a leg to stand on.
The true arguement here and the only one that has merit to it is the arguement of the right of the business owner. Now you may disagree with me and that is fine, but that arguement has merit.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
those who argue for business owners rights and all, of course you are right...but then i also think, how many OTHER ways are the regulated, what hours they can be open, noise ordinances, whether they can have live acts, etc. if you are at all supportive of any of these regulations, i just think...why not one for public health? and yes, i DO think of it first and foremost as a health issue. sure, one can argue from eiher side, one can argue many bars COULD choose to be smoke-free, etc. fact of the matter is, none did...not at least near me. it DID take being 'forced' for it to happen, and amazingly enough it did NOT negatively affect bar owners' business in the least.
i AM a formewr smoker, and it did happen before i quit and it was a bit annoying, but i did understand it, and i always respected the fact that no one 'should' be forced to endure my bad habit...so yea...i didn't truly have a problem with it. now, as a non-smoker, i ADORE it....b/c i can go and see a band and NOT be subjected to smelling like an ashtray, breathing in smoke, etc. however, i am for judicious government controls, depending on the situation...and i realize it is a slippery slope, subjective, etc....but i HAVE and do support governmental controls over other ares...such as noise, so why not smoke? it's all where you choose to draw the line. for someone like ffg, he wants NO governmental controls, so it makes sense if he or others who think like him not to want it...but for anyone else who supports SOME, or certain situations, etc....it's difficult to decide where you draw such distinctions.
exactly...so much is regulated already (common sense stuff mind you)... now we have a real reason to ban something with hard evidence that it actually kills people and... well....still there is controversy..
like...jeez quit already... the verdict is in. Do it for your wife, kids, or whoever else depends on you.... heck....do it for yourself even!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
those who argue for business owners rights and all, of course you are right...but then i also think, how many OTHER ways are the regulated, what hours they can be open, noise ordinances, whether they can have live acts, etc. if you are at all supportive of any of these regulations, i just think...why not one for public health? and yes, i DO think of it first and foremost as a health issue. sure, one can argue from eiher side, one can argue many bars COULD choose to be smoke-free, etc. fact of the matter is, none did...not at least near me. it DID take being 'forced' for it to happen, and amazingly enough it did NOT negatively affect bar owners' business in the least.
i AM a formewr smoker, and it did happen before i quit and it was a bit annoying, but i did understand it, and i always respected the fact that no one 'should' be forced to endure my bad habit...so yea...i didn't truly have a problem with it. now, as a non-smoker, i ADORE it....b/c i can go and see a band and NOT be subjected to smelling like an ashtray, breathing in smoke, etc. however, i am for judicious government controls, depending on the situation...and i realize it is a slippery slope, subjective, etc....but i HAVE and do support governmental controls over other ares...such as noise, so why not smoke? it's all where you choose to draw the line. for someone like ffg, he wants NO governmental controls, so it makes sense if he or others who think like him not to want it...but for anyone else who supports SOME, or certain situations, etc....it's difficult to decide where you draw such distinctions.
I'm a smoker, but I do like the idea of having smoke free bars and resturaunts. I have nothing against the idea of having establishments that cater to non-smokers. I wouldn't care if every bar/resturaunt in this country was smoke free. My problem is that this was forced upon the business owner. And yes there are many other regulations that are imposed upon business owners and for the most part I don't agree with most of them. With such regulations like closing time and noise levels, those are town ordinances and are voted on during town meeting where the owner(s) can attend and be heard. The owner(s) have a say in how the town votes on this ordinance where as the smoking laws they do not. The government never even attempted to make this a voluntary program, with financial incentives for those that go non-smoking.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I'm a smoker, but I do like the idea of having smoke free bars and resturaunts. I have nothing against the idea of having establishments that cater to non-smokers. I wouldn't care if every bar/resturaunt in this country was smoke free. My problem is that this was forced upon the business owner. And yes there are many other regulations that are imposed upon business owners and for the most part I don't agree with most of them. With such regulations like closing time and noise levels, those are town ordinances and are voted on during town meeting where the owner(s) can attend and be heard. The owner(s) have a say in how the town votes on this ordinance where as the smoking laws they do not. The government never even attempted to make this a voluntary program, with financial incentives for those that go non-smoking.
um, we VOTE for the representatives who make such decisions, do we not? so to me, that is *our say*...and like i said, if you are at all supportive of other governemental controls...it is a slippery slope to decide *where* to draw the line, but i personally am comfortable with it....and in this particular instance, am 100% comfortable with it.
um, we VOTE for the representatives who make such decisions, do we not? so to me, that is *our say*...and like i said, if you are at all supportive of other governemental controls...it is a slippery slope to decide *where* to draw the line, but i personally am comfortable with it....and in this particular instance, am 100% comfortable with it.
Ah yes because elected representative always vote with the public's best interest at heart. Just because I voted for someone doesn't mean i support or should support every decision he or she makes. Also I'm not comfortable with any instance of government overstepping it's bounds regardless of their intentions.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I didn't vote for those representatives and no I'm not comfortable with any instance of government overstepping it's bounds regardless of their intentions.
and i am perfectly comfortable with you or anyone else disagreeing with me. and it IS all a matter of opinion of just exactly *where* the government is overstepping their bounds. it's ok for them to set noise ordinances, issue liquor licenses, issue caberet licenses, but not regulate a public health issue? anyway, i am not 'arguing' i am ALL for it...agree, disagree...i honestly don't care... i am simply enjoying smoke free environemtsn when i go out to eat, for drinks, to see a band in a bar.....etc.....something before i could not beofre this law was inacted.
i am simply enjoying smoke free environemtsn when i go out to eat, for drinks, to see a band in a bar.....etc.....something before i could not beofre this law was inacted.
Well we can both agree on this aspect.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Noise levels and operating times are regulated because they affect the entire neighborhood, not just the people who choose to go into the bar. Health regulations are put into place because it is impossible to look at a salad and tell whether or not it's crawling with e-coli. It's easy enough to take one look at an establishment, see that it's smoke-filled, and decide to take your business elsewhere.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Noise levels and operating times are regulated because they affect the entire neighborhood, not just the people who choose to go into the bar. Health regulations are put into place because it is impossible to look at a salad and tell whether or not it's crawling with e-coli. It's easy enough to take one look at an establishment, see that it's smoke-filled, and decide to take your business elsewhere.
i only have 3 bars within 21 miles of me... if all 3 were smoked filled where could i take my business.
so i have to drive 42 miles round trip to the futrhest one in the hope its not smoke filled... all a smoker has to do is walk 10 yards to the door, smoke, walk 10 yards back...
self·ish [sel-fish] adjective
1. Smokers
2. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
3. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
i only have 3 bars within 21 miles of me... if all 3 were smoked filled where could i take my business.
so i have to drive 42 miles round trip to the futrhest one in the hope its not smoke filled... all a smoker has to do is walk 10 yards to the door, smoke, walk 10 yards back...
self·ish [sel-fish] adjective
1. Smokers
2. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
3. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.
Selfish isn't a bad word. Everyone acts in their own self interest, and the honest ones admit it.
And if you can't find a non-smoking bar near you, open one. Why is it a requirement for someone else to accomodate you?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
And if you can't find a non-smoking bar near you, open one. Why is it a requirement for someone else to accomodate you?
why is it a requirement for establishments to be wheelchair friendly?
fortunately they are all non-smoking near me as they are in the whole of Scotland. Its not a requirement but cant you see how selfish that is... just so one person doesnt have to move 10 yards of their fat arse to have a smoke i have to drive 42 miles to have a drink.. and if i have more than one pint i'll need to get a Taxi... wow.. that makes sense.. lets destroy the environment so i can have a pint in a non smoked-filled pub
i'm sorry but your argument is moronic... i have to open my own non-smoking pub, seriously... why did i never think of that?? :rolleyes:
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Noise levels and operating times are regulated because they affect the entire neighborhood, not just the people who choose to go into the bar. Health regulations are put into place because it is impossible to look at a salad and tell whether or not it's crawling with e-coli. It's easy enough to take one look at an establishment, see that it's smoke-filled, and decide to take your business elsewhere.
following that logic the government should ask the restaurants to show the levels of e. coli infection, without forcing them to clean their salad and let the consumer choose for himself. Same thing with noise level, a little paper on the door that says "here we listen music at 136 db (the general surgeon advises you do not listen to sounds higher than 120 db) and let the public decide. After all we are all consenting, intelligent adults. We should decide for ourselves, we know how to do that.
Like someone said previously I understand ffg or jeffbr who want no regulations at all (though I don't agree), anywhere, but those who see it necessary in some places and not here it doesn't make sense to me.
What about people who are forced to inhale other peoples second hand smoke, what about their freedom rights.
Without taking sides I've thought this was a really weak leaning post for anti smoking lobbyists. I mean noone is forced to walk into a bar where there is smoke, and as for the employees they chose to work there.
~*~*~*~*PROUD EVENFLOW PSYCHO #0026~*~*~*~*
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
Without taking sides I've thought this was a really weak leaning post for anti smoking lobbyists. I mean noone is forced to walk into a bar where there is smoke, and as for the employees they chose to work there.
i am... 3 pubs in the nearest 21 mile radius.. if they were all covered in smoke then i have NO CHOICE.
no employee chooses to work in a smoke filled environment... it used to be a hazard of the job... just like coal-mining had its hazards, should we just have turned round to coal-miners and say "we could enforce your employer to issue you with respiratory equipment but its a business, why should we"
same with hard hats... why did the government enforce the wearing of hardhats on construction sites... to ensure people might be safe at their work
governments are shit, but in the case of peoples health these measures are good things, they ensure everyone is inclusive... i.e. smokers can still visit a non-smoking pub they just have to walk 10 yards to a covered, heated smoking area... but they can still visit a non-smoking pub... a non-smoker cant if they have regard for their health.. so then you make it difficult for a non-smoker to visit their local pub!
thats the crucial thing of this thread
non-smokers cant visit a pro-smoking bar (if they value their health)
whereas smokers CAN and DO go to non-smoking pubs (they just have to go outside to smoke... big fucking deal!)
i have to go to the toilet in a pub and i walk the 10 yards to the toilet... if i had a smokers mentality i'd just drop my trousers/lift my kilt and shit on the floor.... sure it'd smell, but thats not my problem
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Does anyone know how many smoker die because they smoke. I'm not talking about correlation here, but cause and effect...
And does anyone know how many non-smoker die because of second hand smoke?
There was an article in The Gaurdian last year about this, the numbers didn't give much support to the second hand smoke issue. Fuck I can't even find it on the internet, Ill post back if I can find the paper in my house.
~*~*~*~*PROUD EVENFLOW PSYCHO #0026~*~*~*~*
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
30 minutes exposure to second hand smoke is sufficient to reduce coronary blood flow in otherwise healthy adults.
Source: Otsuka, R.
Acute effects of passive smoking on the coronary circulation of healthy young adults
[Journal of the American Medical Association 2001]
Non-smokers exposed to passive smoking in the home have a 25% increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer.
Source: Law, MR et al.
Environmental Tobacco Smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidence
[British Medical Journal 1997]
Passive smoking can be a cause of lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease in adult non-smokers, and a cause of respiratory disease, cot death, middle ear disease and asthmatic attacks in children.
Source: Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health
[Department of Health 1998 and 2004]
Blood cotinine levels among non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke are associated with a 50%-60% increased risk of heart disease.
Source: Whincup, P et al.
Passive smoking and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke; prospective study with cotinine measurement
British Medical Journal, June 2004]
Exposure to second-hand smoke – passive smoking or Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) – is associated with:
Acute respiratory illness in early childhood
Chronic cough, phlegm, and wheeze in children
Chronic middle ear effusions in children
Reduced levels and growth of lung function in children
Increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
Increased bronchial hyper-responsiveness in asthmatics
Increased lung symptoms in asthmatics
Decreased lung function in asthmatics
Irritation to the eyes, nose, throat
Increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease with long-term exposure
Source: Pechacek TF, Babb S.
How acute and reversible are the cardiovascular risks of second-hand smoke?
[British Medical Journal 2004]
42% of children in the UK live in a home where at least one person smokes.
Source: General Household Survey 1998
[Office for National Statistics]
In houses where both parents smoke, young children have a 72% increased risk of respiratory illnesses.
Source: Strachan DP and Cook DG.
Parental smoking and lower respiratory illness in infancy and early childhood
[Thorax 1997]
More than 17,000 children under the age of five are admitted to hospital in the UK every year because of the effects of passive smoking.
Source: Smoking and the Young
[Royal College of Physicians 1992]
Children’s mental development – reading and reasoning skills – was affected even a low levels of smoke exposure.
Source: Yolton K et al.
Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and cognitive ability among US children
[Abstracts Online May 2002]
Passive smoking is a cause of bronchitis, pneumonia, coughing and wheezing, asthma attacks, middle ear infection, cot death, and possibly cardiovascular and neurobiological impairment in children.
Source: International consultation on environmental tobacco smoke and child health
[World Health Organisation 1999]
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
i am... 3 pubs in the nearest 21 mile radius.. if they were all covered in smoke then i have NO CHOICE.
no employee chooses to work in a smoke filled environment... it used to be a hazard of the job... just like coal-mining had its hazards, should we just have turned round to coal-miners and say "we could enforce your employer to issue you with respiratory equipment but its a business, why should we"
same with hard hats... why did the government enforce the wearing of hardhats on construction sites... to ensure people might be safe at their work
governments are shit, but in the case of peoples health these measures are good things, they ensure everyone is inclusive... i.e. smokers can still visit a non-smoking pub they just have to walk 10 yards to a covered, heated smoking area... but they can still visit a non-smoking pub... a non-smoker cant if they have regard for their health.. so then you make it difficult for a non-smoker to visit their local pub!
thats the crucial thing of this thread
non-smokers cant visit a pro-smoking bar (if they value their health)
whereas smokers CAN and DO go to non-smoking pubs (they just have to go outside to smoke... big fucking deal!)
i have to go to the toilet in a pub and i walk the 10 yards to the toilet... if i had a smokers mentality i'd just drop my trousers/lift my kilt and shit on the floor.... sure it'd smell, but thats not my problem
Suddenly I don't like alcohol, I think its a terrible thing, I mean the amount of suicides, assualts, murders, thefts, driving accidents etc that arise from it is just awful and people get ADDICTED, my, that sounds like a drug that the government should take action on. Why should I for example have to leave a restauraunt and walk trhough town having to deal with these drunken idiots, some of whom are very agressive, not very safe, what about my rights and my protections? Why shouldn't alcohol only be consumed in private? All of a sudden this situation is solved for you because you can't drink in public places.
~*~*~*~*PROUD EVENFLOW PSYCHO #0026~*~*~*~*
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
Suddenly I don't like alcohol, I think its a terrible thing, I mean the amount of suicides, assualts, murders, thefts, driving accidents etc that arise from it is just awful and people get ADDICTED, my, that sounds like a drug that the government should take action on. Why should I for example have to leave a restauraunt and walk trhough town having to deal with these drunken idiots, some of whom are very agressive, not very safe, what about my rights and my protections? Why shouldn't alcohol only be consumed in private? All of a sudden this situation is solved for you because you can't drink in public places.
thats a bi-product of the social times we live in... the drinking culture is entirely different in varying countries.. go to a village in Northern Spain and this wouldnt happen... passive smoking harms regardless of societal boundaries, regardless of geographical boundaries..
people use this argument a lot i.e. people get fat should we ban McDonalds... ehhhh a fat guy eating himself to death in no way affects my health... can you get drunk or fat by osmosis... no...
passive smoking harms people, thats fact... getting hammered and then attacking someone harms people, thats fact
both should be banned.... oh wait the second is..
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Comments
I pay for my own insurance so no one is footing my bill.
What about obese people. They require a greater amount of healthcare so should we tell all resturaunt that they can no longer serve fattening foods.
This sounds like a great argument for sterilizing welfare mothers, or even couples who don't have the financial means to care for their offspring.
The ball is in motion with tranfat bans.
sounds like socialized medicine too. Is he saying that in America, if you cant afford healthcare, its provided by tax dollars?
www.myspace.com/jensvad
denying reproduction is much harsher then denying smokers rights.
Well yeah..more people in society don't smoke cigarettes, and for good reason.
Cigarette smokers are the minority. So what most people (and the gov't) see as common sense, smokers call incessant whining and unfair discrimination.
Smokers have no valid argument except for just complaining about it for the sake of complaining, and pointing fingers.
it's been a looong time coming..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Food doesn't kill you...eating too much or being addicted to it is the problem.
There is no safe level of cigarette smoke...
It's the people that can't control themselves that are the problem
...like smokers...lol
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I find it funny that not one smoker on this board has stated that they dislike this law because it is discrimination against them, not one. You even have non-smokers who are stating the samething I am. The only people I see whinning are a few, not all, of the non-smokers.
Who's whining? ...I'm only stating facts...you can choose to see what you want. If you think smokers don't feel somewhat alienated , infringed upon, and discriminated against you're sadly sadly (sadly) mistaken...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I don't care that some or many smokers may feel that way. It is ridiculous for them to feel that way because no one is prohibiting them from smoking. Their arguement doesn't have a leg to stand on.
The true arguement here and the only one that has merit to it is the arguement of the right of the business owner. Now you may disagree with me and that is fine, but that arguement has merit.
those who argue for business owners rights and all, of course you are right...but then i also think, how many OTHER ways are the regulated, what hours they can be open, noise ordinances, whether they can have live acts, etc. if you are at all supportive of any of these regulations, i just think...why not one for public health? and yes, i DO think of it first and foremost as a health issue. sure, one can argue from eiher side, one can argue many bars COULD choose to be smoke-free, etc. fact of the matter is, none did...not at least near me. it DID take being 'forced' for it to happen, and amazingly enough it did NOT negatively affect bar owners' business in the least.
i AM a formewr smoker, and it did happen before i quit and it was a bit annoying, but i did understand it, and i always respected the fact that no one 'should' be forced to endure my bad habit...so yea...i didn't truly have a problem with it. now, as a non-smoker, i ADORE it....b/c i can go and see a band and NOT be subjected to smelling like an ashtray, breathing in smoke, etc. however, i am for judicious government controls, depending on the situation...and i realize it is a slippery slope, subjective, etc....but i HAVE and do support governmental controls over other ares...such as noise, so why not smoke? it's all where you choose to draw the line. for someone like ffg, he wants NO governmental controls, so it makes sense if he or others who think like him not to want it...but for anyone else who supports SOME, or certain situations, etc....it's difficult to decide where you draw such distinctions.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
exactly...so much is regulated already (common sense stuff mind you)... now we have a real reason to ban something with hard evidence that it actually kills people and... well....still there is controversy..
like...jeez quit already... the verdict is in. Do it for your wife, kids, or whoever else depends on you.... heck....do it for yourself even!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I'm a smoker, but I do like the idea of having smoke free bars and resturaunts. I have nothing against the idea of having establishments that cater to non-smokers. I wouldn't care if every bar/resturaunt in this country was smoke free. My problem is that this was forced upon the business owner. And yes there are many other regulations that are imposed upon business owners and for the most part I don't agree with most of them. With such regulations like closing time and noise levels, those are town ordinances and are voted on during town meeting where the owner(s) can attend and be heard. The owner(s) have a say in how the town votes on this ordinance where as the smoking laws they do not. The government never even attempted to make this a voluntary program, with financial incentives for those that go non-smoking.
um, we VOTE for the representatives who make such decisions, do we not? so to me, that is *our say*...and like i said, if you are at all supportive of other governemental controls...it is a slippery slope to decide *where* to draw the line, but i personally am comfortable with it....and in this particular instance, am 100% comfortable with it.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Ah yes because elected representative always vote with the public's best interest at heart. Just because I voted for someone doesn't mean i support or should support every decision he or she makes. Also I'm not comfortable with any instance of government overstepping it's bounds regardless of their intentions.
and i am perfectly comfortable with you or anyone else disagreeing with me.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Well we can both agree on this aspect.
i only have 3 bars within 21 miles of me... if all 3 were smoked filled where could i take my business.
so i have to drive 42 miles round trip to the futrhest one in the hope its not smoke filled... all a smoker has to do is walk 10 yards to the door, smoke, walk 10 yards back...
self·ish [sel-fish] adjective
1. Smokers
2. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
3. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.
Selfish isn't a bad word. Everyone acts in their own self interest, and the honest ones admit it.
And if you can't find a non-smoking bar near you, open one. Why is it a requirement for someone else to accomodate you?
why is it a requirement for establishments to be wheelchair friendly?
fortunately they are all non-smoking near me as they are in the whole of Scotland. Its not a requirement but cant you see how selfish that is... just so one person doesnt have to move 10 yards of their fat arse to have a smoke i have to drive 42 miles to have a drink.. and if i have more than one pint i'll need to get a Taxi... wow.. that makes sense.. lets destroy the environment so i can have a pint in a non smoked-filled pub
i'm sorry but your argument is moronic... i have to open my own non-smoking pub, seriously... why did i never think of that?? :rolleyes:
following that logic the government should ask the restaurants to show the levels of e. coli infection, without forcing them to clean their salad and let the consumer choose for himself. Same thing with noise level, a little paper on the door that says "here we listen music at 136 db (the general surgeon advises you do not listen to sounds higher than 120 db) and let the public decide. After all we are all consenting, intelligent adults. We should decide for ourselves, we know how to do that.
Like someone said previously I understand ffg or jeffbr who want no regulations at all (though I don't agree), anywhere, but those who see it necessary in some places and not here it doesn't make sense to me.
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
i am... 3 pubs in the nearest 21 mile radius.. if they were all covered in smoke then i have NO CHOICE.
no employee chooses to work in a smoke filled environment... it used to be a hazard of the job... just like coal-mining had its hazards, should we just have turned round to coal-miners and say "we could enforce your employer to issue you with respiratory equipment but its a business, why should we"
same with hard hats... why did the government enforce the wearing of hardhats on construction sites... to ensure people might be safe at their work
governments are shit, but in the case of peoples health these measures are good things, they ensure everyone is inclusive... i.e. smokers can still visit a non-smoking pub they just have to walk 10 yards to a covered, heated smoking area... but they can still visit a non-smoking pub... a non-smoker cant if they have regard for their health.. so then you make it difficult for a non-smoker to visit their local pub!
thats the crucial thing of this thread
non-smokers cant visit a pro-smoking bar (if they value their health)
whereas smokers CAN and DO go to non-smoking pubs (they just have to go outside to smoke... big fucking deal!)
i have to go to the toilet in a pub and i walk the 10 yards to the toilet... if i had a smokers mentality i'd just drop my trousers/lift my kilt and shit on the floor.... sure it'd smell, but thats not my problem
And does anyone know how many non-smoker die because of second hand smoke?
naděje umírá poslední
http://www.globalink.org/documents/2005smokefreebarsandrestaurantsinNorway.pdf
as for the deaths Collin
http://www.clearingtheairscotland.com/facts/facts.html
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
Source: Otsuka, R.
Acute effects of passive smoking on the coronary circulation of healthy young adults
[Journal of the American Medical Association 2001]
Non-smokers exposed to passive smoking in the home have a 25% increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer.
Source: Law, MR et al.
Environmental Tobacco Smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidence
[British Medical Journal 1997]
Passive smoking can be a cause of lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease in adult non-smokers, and a cause of respiratory disease, cot death, middle ear disease and asthmatic attacks in children.
Source: Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health
[Department of Health 1998 and 2004]
Blood cotinine levels among non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke are associated with a 50%-60% increased risk of heart disease.
Source: Whincup, P et al.
Passive smoking and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke; prospective study with cotinine measurement
British Medical Journal, June 2004]
Exposure to second-hand smoke – passive smoking or Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) – is associated with:
Acute respiratory illness in early childhood
Chronic cough, phlegm, and wheeze in children
Chronic middle ear effusions in children
Reduced levels and growth of lung function in children
Increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
Increased bronchial hyper-responsiveness in asthmatics
Increased lung symptoms in asthmatics
Decreased lung function in asthmatics
Irritation to the eyes, nose, throat
Increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease with long-term exposure
Source: Pechacek TF, Babb S.
How acute and reversible are the cardiovascular risks of second-hand smoke?
[British Medical Journal 2004]
42% of children in the UK live in a home where at least one person smokes.
Source: General Household Survey 1998
[Office for National Statistics]
In houses where both parents smoke, young children have a 72% increased risk of respiratory illnesses.
Source: Strachan DP and Cook DG.
Parental smoking and lower respiratory illness in infancy and early childhood
[Thorax 1997]
More than 17,000 children under the age of five are admitted to hospital in the UK every year because of the effects of passive smoking.
Source: Smoking and the Young
[Royal College of Physicians 1992]
Children’s mental development – reading and reasoning skills – was affected even a low levels of smoke exposure.
Source: Yolton K et al.
Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and cognitive ability among US children
[Abstracts Online May 2002]
Passive smoking is a cause of bronchitis, pneumonia, coughing and wheezing, asthma attacks, middle ear infection, cot death, and possibly cardiovascular and neurobiological impairment in children.
Source: International consultation on environmental tobacco smoke and child health
[World Health Organisation 1999]
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
thats a bi-product of the social times we live in... the drinking culture is entirely different in varying countries.. go to a village in Northern Spain and this wouldnt happen... passive smoking harms regardless of societal boundaries, regardless of geographical boundaries..
people use this argument a lot i.e. people get fat should we ban McDonalds... ehhhh a fat guy eating himself to death in no way affects my health... can you get drunk or fat by osmosis... no...
passive smoking harms people, thats fact... getting hammered and then attacking someone harms people, thats fact
both should be banned.... oh wait the second is..