quote Originally posted by AntiKev: I will say though that there is still a haze in almost every bar I enter, because the smoking had become such a part of the atmosphere, many bars have replaced the smokers with smoke machines to make sure the ambiance isn't lost.

Are you serious?

quote Originally posted by pokeyfiero: I agree with you but I think the issue here at least between us is that a public place is defined by law. By law a bar or restaurant is a public place. Refusing ones admittance to said places has consequences also as defined by law. Not that they can't but there needs to be reason that a judge would agree with and the interpretation of the law is another matter entirely. Still basic rights apply and I covered that in the previous post.

It seems to me that there is a disconnect here, and the definition is more one of convenience not only for you and me but for the lawmakers as well. A public place (to me) is a park, street, sidewalk, government-run school etc. A private establishment is any business that occurs on property owned and/or operated by a private citizen or group of private citizens (corporations). The lawmakers seem to switch these definitions based on convenience at the time of enacting a law.

You're right on the second point, basic rights DO apply. Freedom of assembly and freedom of association come to mind.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: That may be, Patrick, but it's a selfish one. Second hand smoke doesn't bother everyone the way you do and a society can't be ordered to make things comfortable for a few that are the most harshly affected.

How is it selfish when it's been demonstrated that second hand smoke is a leading contributor to lung cancer and/or lung disease in humans? Am I the only human to be inhaling second hand smoke? I think not.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I am personally allergic to onions. I have been since childhood. (seriously) It's nearly impossible for me to eat at a restaurant with any assurance that I'm not getting food that I'm allergic to. The symptoms of my allergies are headach, proceeding to migraine (sometimes requiring a shot of Sumatriptan to alleviate) with it's accompanying nausea. If I go out to eat to a new restaurant where I don't know how the foods are prepared I will typically take 4 Tylenols beforehand. Even when I tell the wait staff of my allergy, most of the times I'm served something with onions. It would make my life much easier and healthier if onions were NEVER allowed to be cooked with in a public restaurant. They should be served on the side and those that wish to eat them have that option. Of course, this isn't going to happen because we can't order a society to fit the needs of a hypersensitive minority in that society. It's not practical and simply shouldn't be done.

I am personally allergic to nuts, especially peanuts. I have been since childhood. (seriously) It's nearly impossible for me to eat at a restaurant with any assurance that I'm not getting food that I'm allergic to. The symptoms of my allergies are nausea, turning blue, and in the worse case scenario, death. (I'm not kidding. A handful of peanuts would kill me without medical intervention.) If I go out to eat at a new restaurant where I don't know how the foods are prepared, my girlfriend (the doctor) will bring along her EpiPen. Even when I tell the wait staff of my allergy, many times I've been served something with nuts.

It would make my life much easier and healthier if nuts were NEVER allowed to be cooked with in a public restaurant. They should be served on the side and those that wish to eat them have that option.

Of course, this isn't going to happen because we can't order a society to fit the needs of a hypersensitive minority in that society. It's not practical and simply shouldn't be done.

Forgive me John for mimicking your post, but it was too perfect. I agree 100% with what you've stated about onions, and I feel the same way about nuts. The local schoolboards here have declared peanuts (and peanut butter) to be off limits for all (elementary school) students. No one is allowed to bring peanuts or peanut butter into the school. As much as I understand the dangers of nut allergies, I believe this to be quite an over-reaction. Someone next to me consuming peanuts is not contributing to any health risk of mine. Someone smoking cigarettes beside me is.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: If we want to ban smoking, the for crying out loud make the sale and use of tobacco illegal. Period. That settles the problem.

Would it?

Look at the uproar from all the crybabies who wish to retain the status quo of smoking where they please. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if tobacco was legislated to be illegal. Visions of angry, gun-toting, nicotine starved vigilantes come to mind.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 12-10-2006).]

Personally, I am overjoyed with the smoking ban, especially in pub / restaraunts. There is nothing worse than sitting down to eat a meal and having some other guys smoke wafting over to your table while you are trying to enjoy your food. Plus, I didn't particularily like smelling like a chimney when I left these places, and having to do laundry the next day just to get the stink off my clothes. All the places around here predicted doom and gloom and lost revenue for the businesses, but at the end of the day, it had little effect on things. Some places even reported an increase in business. I really don't have anything against people who choose to smoke - thats their choice and thats cool. But as a non-smoker who has had relatives pass on because of lung cancer, I find second hand smoke offensive and applaud business that supported the ban on smoking.

Holy smokes, I totally agree with a post by Loafer !!!

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Holy smokes, I totally agree with a post by Loafer !!!

Crikey - peace in the middle east can't be too far behind...

quote Originally posted by loafer87gt: Crikey - peace in the middle east can't be too far behind...

I know - How about if we ship unlimited cartons of smokes to al-Qaeda? That should finish them off.

I can see it now - Placards reading... "Bensen & Hedges, not bombs".

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 12-10-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: How is it selfish when it's been demonstrated that second hand smoke is a leading contributor to lung cancer and/or lung disease in humans? Am I the only human to be inhaling second hand smoke? I think not.

WHOA!!!! Inserting those little words to make that an UNTRUE statement. "IS" should be change to "CAN BE". THERE IS NO DIRECT LINK! And a few minutes of your life in a bar is not going to be detrimental to your health. Once again, the truth is that people like you are STREEEEETTTTCCCHHHHING the truth to get the government to pass laws to suit you where the government shouldn't be sticking their noses in. It's a private business, not a public place.

quote Originally posted by aceman: THERE IS NO DIRECT LINK!

In this era of digital audio, I'm surprised there continues to be so much of a problem with broken records.

quote Originally posted by aceman: It's a private business, not a public place.

Being a public business does not stop it from being a public place. A public place anyone should and does have the right to frequent.
By your logic I could say that the board of health has no right dictating the practices of the kitchen in a restaurant or deli,butcher,grocery store. By this logic I could argue that any law didn't apply in my private business establishment.

Things can't be right for some things and not others because you have a preponderance.
Things are simple until we make them complicated.

Do you have cancer, Patrick? You've been exposed to secondhand smoke for so long that it WILL give you cancer. Because......IT'S A DIRECT LINK!

If I'm exposed to radiation in high doses, I will die from radiation.

If I drink a bottle of anti-freeze, I will die.

If I jump 30 stories onto a parking lot, I will die.

There is a DIRECT LINK in every one of those cases.


If I chew tobacco, I may get lip or throat cancer and I may die. I can get lip or throat cancer without ever chewing tobacco.

If I smoke 2 packs a day of cigarettes, I may get lung cancer and I may die. I may have never smelled or smoke a cigarette and get lung cancer.

There is NO DIRECT LINK in these two cases.

Will someone please give that turntable a nudge.

quote Originally posted by pokeyfiero: Being a public business does not stop it from being a public place. A public place anyone should and does have the right to frequent. By your logic I could say that the board of health has no right dictating the practices of the kitchen in a restaurant or deli,butcher,grocery store. By this logic I could argue that any law didn't apply in my private business establishment. Things can't be right for some things and not others because you have a preponderance. Things are simple until we make them complicated.

pokey,
If I didn't fowllow sanitary rules in my kitchen of my restaurant, I as the owner can infect a population with food poisoning, e coli, or botulism. ALL have a DIRECT LINK with being a health issue. However, I am not directly harming my customers by allowing smoking in my restaurant. Why? Because the secondhand smoke exposure has not been proven anywhere to DIRECTLY cause a health issue. If I eat food with e. coli contamination, I'm likely to get e coli. If I sit in a retaurant with someone smoking 25 feet away, I'm NOT LIKELY to get cancer.

In regards the the thread title and not the arguing.

THANK GOD.

Smoking should be forbidden in ALL public enclosed places. I don't feel like smelling like SH1T or getting cancer.

quote Originally posted by loafer87gt: Personally, I am overjoyed with the smoking ban, especially in pub / restaraunts. There is nothing worse than sitting down to eat a meal and having some other guys smoke wafting over to your table while you are trying to enjoy your food. Plus, I didn't particularily like smelling like a chimney when I left these places, and having to do laundry the next day just to get the stink off my clothes. All the places around here predicted doom and gloom and lost revenue for the businesses, but at the end of the day, it had little effect on things. Some places even reported an increase in business. I really don't have anything against people who choose to smoke - thats their choice and thats cool. But as a non-smoker who has had relatives pass on because of lung cancer, I find second hand smoke offensive and applaud business that supported the ban on smoking.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Holy smokes, I totally agree with a post by Loafer !!!

Patrick, you can not have it both ways. Loafer said "...businesses that support a ban". Not ones that are forced to.

Some interesting musings..
The great steps forward in modern medicine has been more than partially funded by millions of smokers, over many many years. Smokers have PERSONALLYcontributed up to 5 times more, over and above normal contributions via tax, to the advancement of medicine, than non-smokers.Perhaps a vote of thanks should be passed by the non-smokers who have benefitted so handsomely over the last 100 years.
I have never heard of somebody, or ANYBODY, assaulting a nurse or doctor in an ER unit, because he had spent the previous 6 hours smoking 5 cigarettes.
I have never heard of somebody driving in a dangerous and life-threatening fashion, having smoked cigarettes all evening.
I have never ever heard of somebody having their face cut to ribbons by an empty cigarette carton.
I have never ever heard of somebody seriously cutting their feet on a discarded cigarette carton.
I have never ever heard of instances when a spouse comes home and beats their wife/husband/children/mother/father to apulp because he had spent the last 8 hours smoking too many cigarettes.
I have never heard of cars having their tyres punctured by discarded, broken cigarette packets.
I have never ever heard of somebody urinatiing in a public place, against a wall, in full view of passers-by, because they had just spent the evening smoking.
I have never heard of somebody being sent home from work, for being unfit to do their job because of smoking cigarettes.
I have never heard mooted a Law forcing people who consume alcohol to do so in their own homes exclusively..but would welcome the day it happens.
You see, I dislike, as equally as intensively as the anti-smokers in the World, people who use alcohol. It is just as un-neccessary as smoking.It does MORE harm, on a far greater scale, than smoking ever has. The number of patients in UK and European hospitals suffering from kidney, liver and other illnesses caused by alcohol FAR outweigh the number of those suffering from smoking. And costs the Health system FAR more to treat than smoking diseases. And it is growing at a far greater rate than smoking diseases.
Just the other day, on Sky News, an English Health Ministry spokesperson said that there had been 600 deaths which could POSSIBLY be attributed to secondhand smoke in the UK..,as opposed to the number of deaths attributed DIRECTLY to Alcohol use....some 18.000 plus.
Smoking, even now, costs a lot less to support than drinking alcohol. More family homes become destitute as the result of alcohol misuse, as opposed to the use of tobacoco.
I am going to try,once again, to quit smoking this new year.Managed 5 months this year..hope to make it for ever next time. I hate it. I am only making these comments as a way of showing the hypocricy amongst the Anti-smoking lobby...many who drink far more money away than somebody who smokes 40 fags a day. And to amusedly point out to so many anti-bigots, that THEY themselves have suddenly become extremelybigotted in this thread
Nick
Oh...and did it cross anybody's mind that the cost of gasoline remains so high, to counteract the vast losses of revenue caused by people being persuaded to quit using tobacco? And..the obesity problems amongst today's population is going to be even more exacerbated by the weight gained by stopping smoking? I KNOW that many of the people I know who quit smoking after many years, have gained very unhealthy amounts of bodyweight as a direct result....
And finally, read this...
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/news/efe/20/article_2434_en.htm
and tell me that smoking is more deadly than the filth we ALL breathe in, every day and night, smoker or non-smoker. And err...who is the main culprit, and also the most obvious abstainer, from the Kyoto Pact Summit, or whatever it was called?

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 12-10-2006).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Patrick, you can not have it both ways. Loafer said "...businesses that support a ban". Not ones that are forced to.

"...both ways" ?

Cliff, I don't know what you're getting at. I also applaud business that supported the ban on smoking. Keep in mind that there's always a few places which didn't want to see the laws being changed. I don't think much of those establishments.

Please don't try and come between Loafer and me again.

quote Originally posted by loafer87gt: But as a non-smoker who has had relatives pass on because of lung cancer, I find second hand smoke offensive and applaud business that supported the ban on smoking.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: "...both ways" ? Cliff, I don't know what you're getting at. I also applaud business that supported the ban on smoking. Keep in mind that there's always a few places which didn't want to see the laws being changed. I don't think much of those establishments. Please don't try and come between Loafer and me again.

And yours aren't? Time somebody nudged YOUR turntable, Patrick. And I don't NEED to name names either..they name themselves.The day you decide to turn off your electricity, central heating, walk to work, and throw away your ICE driven vehicle, you will have SOME rights to moan. Until then,you have none
Nick
Throw some bait in the water, and the biggest fish rise to it immediately
Brings to mind a very funny sketch I once saw on TV...Quasimodo picks up a mirror, peers into it, and then screams with disgust. Esmeralda picks it up, and says 'what's the matter, Quasimodo?' Qusiamodo says @ what can you see in that thing?' esmeralda replies, looking into the mirror..' Why,ME.of course..' whereupon Quasimodo says ' Thank God for that..I thought it wasME' !!!

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 12-10-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: How is it selfish when it's been demonstrated that second hand smoke is a leading contributor to lung cancer and/or lung disease in humans? Am I the only human to be inhaling second hand smoke? I think not.

It's selfish because it affects you so strongly that you would remove the CHOICE of others to associate with and frequent places where they might want to smoke. You don't have the right to make that decision for anyone other than yourself.

Again, I think there should be a sign at the door stating the establishment's smoking policy and then YOU CAN DECIDE if you wish to patronize that business or not.

YOUR idea of banning things IS removing other people's choice, Patrick. Your argument on the health issues is as hollow as those that start out "If it saves just one child's life................(enter your favorite cause here).

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Would it? Look at the uproar from all the crybabies who wish to retain the status quo of smoking where they please. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if tobacco was legislated to be illegal. Visions of angry, gun-toting, nicotine starved vigilantes come to mind.

No doubt. But the uproar is irrelevant to me. Tobacco is either a legal substance that people can choose to use or not. Right now it is, therefore it should be able to BE used at the discretion of the individuals. That means if you don't want to be around it, then leave or don't go there IF the policy of the club/bar/restaurant/whatver is that it is a smoking establishment. I do think you should be told of the policies BEFORE you enter that PRIVATE PROPERTY, but leave the choice up to the individuals.

John Stricker

PS: For the record, I also hate the smell of second hand smoke and if a bar or restaurant is thick with it, I'll leave or not go in. I use tobacco in the form of Cigars, probably only LIGHT 2-3 a month and always outside (my deck, with a nice Brandy normally) because I hate the way it makes my vehicles, house, etc., smell after I use it.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: I have never heard mooted a Law forcing people who consume alcohol to do so in their own homes exclusively..but would welcome the day it happens. You see, I dislike, as equally as intensively as the anti-smokers in the World, people who use alcohol. It is just as un-neccessary as smoking.It does MORE harm, on a far greater scale, than smoking ever has. The number of patients in UK and European hospitals suffering from kidney, liver and other illnesses caused by alcohol FAR outweigh the number of those suffering from smoking. And costs the Health system FAR more to treat than smoking diseases. And it is growing at a far greater rate than smoking diseases.

Nick,

I wholeheartedly disagree. Although drinking is A FACTOR in every single thing you mentioned, the blame still lies squarely on the people who destroy their own lives and those of others by abusing alcohol. If you can't exercise the self control to control the amount you consume, then at least don't do something stupid like drive while you're drunk. And you wouldn't complain about the costs to the health system if the people with these problems had to pay for the treatment themselves. But that's a story for another thread and another time...don't let me start ranting about socialized medicine.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: It's selfish because it affects you so strongly that you would...

I thought I made it pretty clear with my comments about my severe nut allergies that I wasn't interested in "selfish" actions such as banning peanuts from all elementary schools.

If it wasn't for "selfish" b*st*rds like me, non-smokers (adults and children alike) would still be forced to breathe in all that sh!t while in movie theatres, supermarkets, restaurants, wherever...

We can agree to disagree.

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: Nick, I wholeheartedly disagree. Although drinking is A FACTOR in every single thing you mentioned, the blame still lies squarely on the people who destroy their own lives and those of others by abusing alcohol. If you can't exercise the self control to control the amount you consume, then at least don't do something stupid like drive while you're drunk. And you wouldn't complain about the costs to the health system if the people with these problems had to pay for the treatment themselves. But that's a story for another thread and another time...don't let me start ranting about socialized medicine.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with? What you have said is right on the nail..it is PERSONAL responsibility that is the criteria in both instances..but there is no furore raging, in the same way as there is about smoking, regarding drinking alcohol...that is the point I was trying to make..it is an unbalanced bias against one of two major personal indulgences current in today's World, which are both useless, and un-neccessary, and self-damaging primarily,and possibly damaging to others in ONE instance, and DEFINITELY damaging to others in the other.. If drinking was next on the list, or ran concurrently to the smoking one, I would say it was fair...but one escapes retribution, whilst the other is pilloried. And why? Possibly because a majority indulge in drinking alcohol, whilst a minority indulge in smoking...apparently. It is the unfairness of picking on one abherration, and not the other that winds me up. And I dislike, equally, both weaknesses..one of which I am susceptible to. I WISH that it was the SALE and Distribution of cigarettes that was banned..that would help me, and many more, to quit for good.They have made a step in the right direction here in Spain..you can only now buy cigarettes etc from an official Tobacconists.. not in filling stations, newsagents, bars etc etc. I look forward to the day when tobacco is no longer available AT ALL.
Socialised medicine? Boy, it appears we are both rowing the same boat together, there!!!
Nick
Along with Car Insurance !!

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 12-10-2006).]

Yes we can.

In your mind, it's worth it to surrender that right to choose. In my mind it is not. None of us live in a perfectly free society and never will, but I really don't see how removing choice really helps much.

Here's your homework, though. Find me any definitive study that shows that OCCASIONAL EXPOSURE to second hand smoke by people coming from a non-smoking household causes any lasting health effects like cancer, asthman, emphysema, etc. Some people are affected by it so drastically that they do suffer short term effects but that is a very small minority. For the rest of the crusaders, it's simply because THEY DON'T WANT IT, not any real health concern.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I thought I made it pretty clear with my comments about my severe nut allergies that I wasn't interested in "selfish" actions such as banning peanuts from all elementary schools. If it wasn't for "selfish" b*st*rds like me, non-smokers (adults and children alike) would still be forced to breathe in all that sh!t while in movie theatres, supermarkets, restaurants, wherever... We can agree to disagree.

He won't, because he can't find any. He refuses to acknowledge a DIRECT LINK is nonexistent

quote Originally posted by jstricker: For the rest of the crusaders, it's simply because THEY DON'T WANT IT, not any real health concern.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with that?

If I was walking my dog, and everytime it passed you I allowed it to pee on your shoe, would you be upset? Would you want my dog to stop doing that? Of course you would. But why, I see no associated health concern. (Well, maybe my health when you eventually pull your side arm out.)

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with? What you have said is right on the nail.. ...

Nick you had said that you would welcome the day that people could ONLY drink in their homes. Well the US has gone one step further than that, a little-known time called prohibition. People usually apply the following colloquialism only to firearms: "When they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." The same applies for cigarettes and booze. Look at the war on drugs. There will ALWAYS be people that want to escape, or need a vice. I don't smoke weed, never have, probably never will. Some of my friends do, but they know my policy, they don't offer me any and they don't say anything when I disappear while they go smoke up. There are some behaviors that I find totally reprehensible, for example I don't understand why anyone would ever want to use IV drugs, the thought of needles makes me sick. What I do think we should do is allow the current impaired driving laws to be enforced equally and consistently for ALL mood-altering substances, be it alcohol or weed. If you endanger someone else because of your stupidity you deserve to spend some time contemplating your navel, or how to protect your behind from Bubba in the shower.

Interestingly enough, John, here in Spain it is up to the proprietor of the premises to decide whether to allow smoking or not...you will see signs on various establishments which say smoking is, or isn't allowed, and it is up to the individual to decide whether they want to go in or not.Unfortunately, that will have to change in the near future, because EUROPEAN Government has decided they have that right, to decide, not the owners.
Nick.
I would also like to point out that, until the age of 14, I suffered regular bouts of bronchitis which kept me in bed more often than out of it. I stopped getting them, when I was 14. Was that because I started to smoke then, or because our body changes every seven years? My mother couldn't understand why it stopped. My Doctor told her it was possible that the smoking reduced the irritability in the surface of my lungs, and so stopped my susceptiblity to the illness....but wouldn't be quoted on that!!

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Yes we can. In your mind, it's worth it to surrender that right to choose. In my mind it is not. None of us live in a perfectly free society and never will, but I really don't see how removing choice really helps much. Here's your homework, though. Find me any definitive study that shows that OCCASIONAL EXPOSURE to second hand smoke by people coming from a non-smoking household causes any lasting health effects like cancer, asthman, emphysema, etc. Some people are affected by it so drastically that they do suffer short term effects but that is a very small minority. For the rest of the crusaders, it's simply because THEY DON'T WANT IT, not any real health concern. John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Patrick: And what, pray tell, is wrong with that? If I was walking my dog, and everytime it passed you I allowed it to pee on your shoe, would you be upset? Would you want my dog to stop doing that? Of course you would. But why, I see no associated health concern. (Well, maybe my health when you eventually pull your side arm out.)

And there is no criminal law that makes it illegal for a dog to pee on someone's shoe. Why? Because it isn't a detrimental health hazard. I can avoid this from happening by not frequenting the same park at the same time that you're damn dog is being walked. It's inconvenient for me, but solves the problem.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: If I was walking my dog, and everytime it passed you I allowed it to pee on your shoe, would you be upset? Would you want my dog to stop doing that? Of course you would.

Of course, if I knew it was allowed for your dog to pee on my shoe when I walked in such a "zone"....I could avoid that zone. I could stop your dog from peeing on my shoe.

Agreed.Totally. The only reason that prohibition failed, I would guess, is because the majority then , as now, were addicted to alcohol use, although fall short of being alcoholics. If they were in a minority, I have no doubt prohibiton would have worked up to a point, had it lasted..much the same as the taboo of indulging in drugs did, until the Money side of drug use is increasing the addiction every day. IMHO.
Nick

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: Nick you had said that you would welcome the day that people could ONLY drink in their homes. Well the US has gone one step further than that, a little-known time called prohibition. People usually apply the following colloquialism only to firearms: "When they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." The same applies for cigarettes and booze. Look at the war on drugs. There will ALWAYS be people that want to escape, or need a vice. I don't smoke weed, never have, probably never will. Some of my friends do, but they know my policy, they don't offer me any and they don't say anything when I disappear while they go smoke up. There are some behaviors that I find totally reprehensible, for example I don't understand why anyone would ever want to use IV drugs, the thought of needles makes me sick. What I do think we should do is allow the current impaired driving laws to be enforced equally and consistently for ALL mood-altering substances, be it alcohol or weed. If you endanger someone else because of your stupidity you deserve to spend some time contemplating your navel, or how to protect your behind from Bubba in the shower.

quote Originally posted by aceman: And there is no criminal law that makes it illegal for a dog to pee on someone's shoe. Why? Because it isn't a detrimental health hazard. I can avoid this from happening by not frequenting the same park at the same time that you're damn dog is being walked. It's inconvenient for me, but solves the problem.

What if it kept happening to you though? What if everytime you went for a walk, someone's mutt peed on your shoe. Year after year this went on. Pairs of shoes after pairs of shoes needed to be replaced because of the stench.

Would you be prepared to put up with this indefinitely?

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 12-11-2006).]