Page 1 of 2

Smoking

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:58 pm
by kiryan
Oregon is trying to pass or has passed a new law. You can't smoke in the car if there is a person under the age of 17 in it.

Also, have you heard of 3rd hand smoke? Its when smoke particles in the air end up on the floor or the couch. You sit down, the particles get launched back into the air and you breath them. Or kids playing on the ground. The report I read said 3rd hand smoke is like 70% as dangerous as 2nd hand smoke which supposedly is worse than actually smoking!

I think its time to just flat out ban smoking. This is stupid. We waste money researching. We waste money passing laws. You can't do it anywhere anymore. You might as well ban it and deprive states of their tobacco tax money.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:25 pm
by Raiwen
Why ban it when you can just tax it all to hell?

Re: Smoking

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:41 pm
by Botef
As a non-smoker I'm against banning it. As the husband of a smoker who I can't seem to convince to quit, I'd be for it.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:53 pm
by Raiwen
If people want to kill themselves with a substance, then by all means let them. Just tax it based upon it's burden on society.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:05 pm
by kiryan
I smoke maybe 1 pack a cigarettes every 2 years. I'm all for banning it if we going to be so stupid as to tax the living shit out of it and make 99.999% of the uses illegal. I'd prefer the government just stay out of it and let people be, but apparently we can't. So lets just ban it and eliminate the tens of thousands of hours our stupid law makers spend on this and the millions of dollars of federally funded research that continues to prove what is already known and get on with the next public enemy #1, soda pop.

Are you for making heroin legal and putting a $50 a shot tax on it?

Re: Smoking

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:07 pm
by Raiwen
kiryan wrote:Are you for making heroin legal and putting a $50 a shot tax on it?

Grade A smack.

why not?

Re: Smoking

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:12 pm
by Sarvis
kiryan wrote:I smoke maybe 1 pack a cigarettes every 2 years. I'm all for banning it if we going to be so stupid as to tax the living shit out of it and make 99.999% of the uses illegal. I'd prefer the government just stay out of it and let people be, but apparently we can't. So lets just ban it and eliminate the tens of thousands of hours our stupid law makers spend on this and the millions of dollars of federally funded research that continues to prove what is already known and get on with the next public enemy #1, soda pop.

Are you for making heroin legal and putting a $50 a shot tax on it?


Why is it always "all or nothing" with conservatives? As is, you can smoke... you just can't do it when it will hurt other people. You'd really prefer a ban, even knowing that bans on pretty much anything and everything simply don't work and end up costing a ton of money as we try to enforce them? You bring up heroin... how much money are we wasting on the drug war? But sure, let's add cigarettes to that!

Re: Smoking

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:19 pm
by Raiwen
the way I see it: if you ban something, that's just another tool for government.

Tools can be used for good and evil.

It all depends on how that tool is used.

You're not keeping anyone from smoking if you ban them.

You will, however, ensure that a large portion of the population is breaking the law.

For a totalitarian state, this would be a perfect law. Next, if it was me, I'd pass a law making it illegal for anyone to NOT report anyone else for smoking. Bam! The entire country could technically be thrown in jail.

World Domination here I come!

BTW. Vote for me!

Re: Smoking

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:23 pm
by oteb
Kiryan - first on left kneeling?

Re: Smoking

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:24 pm
by Raiwen
I'd hit it

Re: Smoking

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:51 pm
by amena wolfsnarl
Smoke if you want to but dont force your smoke on me, Personally I dont care if u decide to get lung cancer, but why the hell should u have the right to pass that cancer along to me? I like these laws, if you want to smoke thats your business, and it should be taxed to shit cause of the drain it puts on the health care system, here in canada the government has to pick up the tab for that, Im not sure how that works in the states with the privatized health care. I dont want to have to pay for your cancer treatment cause your a dumb ass and decide to do use something that has proven to be horribly toxic for you, thats your own issue and the taxes placed on cigarettes are a way of making them pay for that.

Sides could you imagine what hell it would be being around so many damn smokers trying to quit at once, the nic fits would be scary as hell. *shudder*

Re: Smoking

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:12 pm
by Ragorn
Raiwen wrote:You're not keeping anyone from smoking if you ban them.

The object is not necessarily to keep people from smoking. The goal is to keep people from smoking in public. Smoke all the cigarettes you want in your own house.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:27 pm
by Sarvis
Ragorn wrote:
Raiwen wrote:You're not keeping anyone from smoking if you ban them.

The object is not necessarily to keep people from smoking. The goal is to keep people from smoking in public. Smoke all the cigarettes you want in your own house.


Banning smoking altogether is what Kiryan proposed. That's what we're responding to.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:54 pm
by Pril
Ragorn wrote:
Raiwen wrote:You're not keeping anyone from smoking if you ban them.

The object is not necessarily to keep people from smoking. The goal is to keep people from smoking in public. Smoke all the cigarettes you want in your own house.


Rags here's an interesting question for you that I've had to deal with irl. The person in the apt below me smoked in his apartment so much that the smoke filtered into mine. I understand that really that wasn't his issue it was the property managements issue however it still sucked.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:27 pm
by Ragorn
Yeah, that's kind of a property management issue. I don't really know how I feel one way or the other... can't tell the guy he can't smoke in his own house, but it sucks that you had to deal with it.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:29 pm
by oteb
After an experiment with alcohol prohibition you guys should know better than to ban it. Don't ya think?

Re: Smoking

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:33 pm
by Ragorn
And yet, being drunk in public is still illegal, and that law seems to be working out just fine.

Ban smoking in public, done.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:35 pm
by Sarvis
Ragorn wrote:And yet, being drunk in public is still illegal, and that law seems to be working out just fine.

Ban smoking in public, done.


Being drunk in public isn't really illegal. Actually, I think the "loophole" is that it's illegal to have an open container... but you can just put it in a paper bag and you're fine. Or maybe the cops just don't care to enforce it, but you can definitely drink at tailgate parties, family picnics and even barhopping would mean being drunk in public between bars. (Technically I'd consider bars to be in public as well...)

Re: Smoking

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:16 pm
by Botef
Personally I think any establishment that is prohibited to minors like taverns should be allowed to make that decision on their own. Smoking in a restaurant, sure ban it, but I don't see any reason a business that caters to adults over 21 should be forced into appeasing one group of people.

One of the things that irked me about the state-ban on smoking in places of business was the lack of foresight on how it would effect a number of different businesses like cigar lounges and hookah bars. Those establishments have had to scramble to come up with ways to work around the ban and that is unfortunate.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:28 pm
by amena wolfsnarl
Botef wrote:Personally I think any establishment that is prohibited to minors like taverns should be allowed to make that decision on their own. Smoking in a restaurant, sure ban it, but I don't see any reason a business that caters to adults over 21 should be forced into appeasing one group of people.

One of the things that irked me about the state-ban on smoking in places of business was the lack of foresight on how it would effect a number of different businesses like cigar lounges and hookah bars. Those establishments have had to scramble to come up with ways to work around the ban and that is unfortunate.


The reasoning behind the universal band no matter what the age restriction is to get in, is because people who work in bars, restaurants, and even bingo parlors get so much second hand smoke its not even funny (I worked in a bar for 3 years and i dont smoke i would go home and hack up a lung cause of all the smoke), the cancer rates of these people go sky high and that leads them to working in potentially dangerous work enviroments which opens itself up to all kinds of lawsuits.

Besides, what right does a smoker have to inflict harmful toxins on other people? What makes smokers so much more important than those that dont smoke? To hell with them, if you want to smoke thats your issue, dont force it on me, I have just as much right to be anywhere that smokers do.

And here in Canada the bars have worked out ways to make it legal for them to smoke outside, they still get to smoke and there hasnt really been a significant drop in sales in the bars and restaurants

Re: Smoking

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:37 pm
by Sarvis
amena wolfsnarl wrote:What makes smokers so much more important than those that dont smoke?


Hey, you CHOSE to be near those smokers didn't you? I mean, just because you wanted to be out with your friends and have some fun you OBVIOUSLY consented to second hand smoke because the smokers are there too.

At least, that's the usual argument.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:53 pm
by amena wolfsnarl
Sarvis wrote:
amena wolfsnarl wrote:What makes smokers so much more important than those that dont smoke?


Hey, you CHOSE to be near those smokers didn't you? I mean, just because you wanted to be out with your friends and have some fun you OBVIOUSLY consented to second hand smoke because the smokers are there too.

At least, that's the usual argument.


Yeah i have just as much right to be there as they do, but do they have the right to give me cancer? In the past it was acceptable to smoke everywhere cause the negative effects of smoking werent as clearly known and it became the norm. Changing something that has become acceptable is a hard thing to do and can take years to accomplish.

And if you've ever known a person to die of lung cancer you can understand why a person who chooses to not smoke hate smoking and all it entails so much. So yeah i think smokers shouldnt have the right to put thier toxic chemicals on people under 17 or anyone else for that matter

Re: Smoking

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:55 pm
by oteb
I hope you drive either a bike or electric car.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:04 pm
by Sarvis
oteb wrote:I hope you drive either a bike or electric car.


If you're willing to make that argument, you'd better be willing to sit inside your local tavern next to a car that's also running.

Also, I walked to work today so there. :P

Re: Smoking

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:09 pm
by oteb
Public places are not limited to bars.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:09 am
by Lathander
Wait a minute, this ban would probably include cigars and I love having a cigar once in a while.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:11 am
by Thilindel
Funny how the government 'allows' the public to consume cigarettes and alcohol, because the tax income they bring. I purely don't understand why people are weak and start to drink or smoke in the first place...

You tell the three year old about the hot stove and what happens anyway?

I don't have an opinion either way if someone smokes or doesn't, but I do think it's crazy that ppl go nuts if they haven't smoked, and think it's their right ---BUT what they're really not seeing is the money they fork over, atop the medical problems to incur later on, are not thought about..neither is the fact that a smoker's patronizing of tobacco companies only really helps buy that sunroof option on a tobac exec's new mercedes.

I feel for smokers because I do know that nicotine is more addictive than caffeine. Always thought that the 'feen' sound was more like cafFIEND and nicoFIEND. Anyway, it's hard as hell to not drink mt. dew after a few days. I really feel for the smokers who want to quit but "can't"

fucking greedy tobacco companies. Why can't they do something cool like invent hybrid food or whatever instead that would help a community...not help remove innocents' parents, siblings, loved ones, and so on.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:42 am
by Corth
I used to love smoking. If they ever figure out a way to cure all the resulting diseases I would start again right away.

As for the bartenders.. its not very much different than the nasty shit coal miners breath in on a daily basis. If you choose to be a bartender, or a coal miner, it comes with the territory. If you don't like it, go do something else to earn money...

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:42 am
by Nokar
hrmmm....

Smoking in and of itself is not whats unhealthy. It all the crap they put in the tobacco that's unhealthy! I didn't think pure tobacco was as nasty as what the mix into the cigarettes these days!

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:27 am
by Gormal
The ban on smoking in "public establisments" is probably the most unconstitutional law passed in a long time. I quit smoking for personal reasons a while ago, but I fully support people's right to smoke, drink, and do whatever the fuck they want in private. There's virtually no cause for non-smokers to complain about secondhand smoke, that isn't just plain silly.

If you don't like it, leave.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:25 pm
by Sarvis
Gormal wrote:The ban on smoking in "public establisments" is probably the most unconstitutional law passed in a long time. I quit smoking for personal reasons a while ago, but I fully support people's right to smoke, drink, and do whatever the fuck they want in private. There's virtually no cause for non-smokers to complain about secondhand smoke, that isn't just plain silly.

If you don't like it, leave.


Yes, all non-smokers should just sit home every night so that smokers "rights" aren't being trampled.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:41 pm
by Gormal
I clicked on a Sarvis post for a laugh. It delivered. Yes, you should have the right to tell business owners how to run their business other than patronizing said business.

Get fucked.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:46 pm
by Gormal
Oh wait, you can't because of... well read any post about Sarvis and women to understand why.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:52 pm
by Ragorn
Gormal wrote:The ban on smoking in "public establisments" is probably the most unconstitutional law passed in a long time. I quit smoking for personal reasons a while ago, but I fully support people's right to smoke, drink, and do whatever the fuck they want in private. There's virtually no cause for non-smokers to complain about secondhand smoke, that isn't just plain silly.

If you don't like it, leave.

Yeah, and if you don't like drunk drivers on the roads, don't drive on them, pussies!!

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:30 pm
by Sarvis
Gormal wrote:Oh wait, you can't because of... well read any post about Sarvis and women to understand why.


The funny thing is, that's probably more effective and logical than your ACTUAL anti-anti-smoking argument!

Not by much, but still.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:28 pm
by Corth
You aren't being forced to work in a bar. You aren't being forced to patronize a bar.

Until working in or patronizing bars becomes required, non-smokers have a very weak argument when they try to frame it in terms of rights. Yes, you have the right to not be exposed to smoke.. so long as you stay out of my bar.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:37 pm
by Sarvis
Corth wrote:You aren't being forced to work in a bar. You aren't being forced to patronize a bar.

Until working in or patronizing bars becomes required, non-smokers have a very weak argument when they try to frame it in terms of rights. Yes, you have the right to not be exposed to smoke.. so long as you stay out of my bar.


Corth, without a public establishment smoking ban you give smokers a choice between not going to public establishments and getting cancer. Our economy CERTAINLY isn't in a place right now where choosing not to work in a bar is going to be a valid option, because you need to work somewhere and if the bar is the only one hiring... well it's cancer or starvation.

All to avoid the inconvenience of standing outside for 5 minutes or just not smoking for a couple hours. Oh, and the really funny part is how it's all based on implied permission. I did not give you permission to affect me by simply being there, no matter how much you think I did.


In fact, deep down even smokers know it is the wrong view. I let people smoke in my car if they ask, because they asked and obtained permission. In fact, every smoker I've ever known does this. Yet they walk into a bar or restaurant and suddenly assume everyone's ok with their smoking for some reason? No, they aren't. But in the choice between being out with your friends and sitting home... well, you don't have the right to make one choice involve life threatening consequences no matter how hard it is to wait an hour before lighting up.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:50 pm
by Ragorn
Hey, you're not forced to drive on the roads either, so I should be allowed to drive drunk.

Really, I can do this all day.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:51 pm
by Pril
Corth wrote:You aren't being forced to work in a bar. You aren't being forced to patronize a bar.

Until working in or patronizing bars becomes required, non-smokers have a very weak argument when they try to frame it in terms of rights. Yes, you have the right to not be exposed to smoke.. so long as you stay out of my bar.


Corth,

You can make the reverse argument if smoking is banned:

Yes you have the right to smoke... so long as you stay out of my bar.

I guess the issue becomes it's easier for a smoker to go to a bar and smoke outside then it is for a non smoker to not go to a bar at all.

my 2 cents.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:01 pm
by teflor the ranger
Ragorn wrote:Hey, you're not forced to drive on the roads either, so I should be allowed to drive drunk.

Really, I can do this all day.


People have a right to drive on public roads without being exposed to drunk drivers. Corth is absolutely right in that any argument for banning smoking in bars being framed on rights is weak at best. Existing rights do not extend well to the case of second-hand smoke in a bar, particularly when they infringe upon the rights of the bar owners and the other patrons.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:32 pm
by Botef
What about cigar lounges, hookah bars, and other places that cater specifically to tobacco smokers? Do non-smokers have a right to a smoke free cigar lounge? Most of these places have had to resort to special 'clubs' to stay in business, and that is a bit of a gray area.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:41 pm
by Corth
Ragorn wrote:Hey, you're not forced to drive on the roads either, so I should be allowed to drive drunk.

Really, I can do this all day.


Driving drunk, by any reasonable measure, is a hell of a lot more dangerous than being exposed to secondhand smoke. Moreover, roads are owned by the government for the benefit of all citizens. Bars, on the other hand are privately owned, and in fact a bar owner could reasonably refuse service to whomever he or she wants. Finally, non-smokers are free to goto bars that have voluntarily restricted smoking, whereas there are no alternative options for people who want to drive on public roads.

Your turn.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:54 pm
by Sarvis
Corth wrote:
Ragorn wrote:Hey, you're not forced to drive on the roads either, so I should be allowed to drive drunk.

Really, I can do this all day.


Driving drunk, by any reasonable measure, is a hell of a lot more dangerous than being exposed to secondhand smoke. Moreover, roads are owned by the government for the benefit of all citizens. Bars, on the other hand are privately owned, and in fact a bar owner could reasonably refuse service to whomever he or she wants. Finally, non-smokers are free to goto bars that have voluntarily restricted smoking, whereas there are no alternative options for people who want to drive on public roads.

Your turn.


I've often heard Libertarians claim roads should be privatized instead of government run. Would that change your answer Corth? If GE owned the 90, and didn't care about drunk drivers should it be legal to go on a Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, NYC bar-hop trip?

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:02 pm
by Corth
Its the state that gives you the right to drive, not the owner of the property you are driving on. So even on private property, for instance, unlicensed drivers (such as children) are not allowed to drive. Even if all roads were privatized (which I am not in favor of) it would still be illegal to drive drunk, as it should be.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:11 pm
by Sarvis
Corth wrote:Its the state that gives you the right to drive, not the owner of the property. Even if all roads were privatized it would still be illegal to drive drunk, as it should be.


I really think that says it all, doesn't it? You're basically saying that the "rights" of an entity (not even a person, but a collective whose only purpose is to seek profit) trump the safety of actual people, to the extent that it's OK to turn an important travel/trade route into a death trap if they own it.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:44 pm
by Kifle
3rd hand smoking. I swear, people are just fucking stupid these days, aren't they? Stop eating fatty foods because the diseases you get from them later in life will effect how my taxes are spent. Stop driving your car, because the exhaust fumes I have to breath in when I go outside are killing me faster than my second hand smoke is killing you. I could come up with about a million other equally retarded analogies. The laws baning smoking in private establishments is fucking retarded -- especially the one being discussed in this thread. If the government would enforce healthy eating habits, close down McDonalds or limit the amount each person could buy from any number of establishments like McDonalds, and limit what can or can't be sold in private grocery stores (same principle), then I will wager my left AND right testicles that you would save millions of more lives a year than you ever could banning smoking -- period. This is a fucking witch hunt, it goes against the constitutionally guaranteed rights of US citizens, and it violates common sense to the same degree Sarvis violates himself after a night at the strip club. If this gets passed country-wide, you will see a tremendous backlash.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:49 pm
by Sarvis
Kifle wrote:it goes against the constitutionally guaranteed rights of US citizens,


The right to smoke... hmm... 11th Amendment?

No really, please point out where the Constitution gaurantees you the right to cause harm to those around you.

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:07 pm
by Corth
Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:Its the state that gives you the right to drive, not the owner of the property. Even if all roads were privatized it would still be illegal to drive drunk, as it should be.


I really think that says it all, doesn't it? You're basically saying that the "rights" of an entity (not even a person, but a collective whose only purpose is to seek profit) trump the safety of actual people, to the extent that it's OK to turn an important travel/trade route into a death trap if they own it.


That is what I am saying?

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:14 pm
by Sarvis
Corth wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:Its the state that gives you the right to drive, not the owner of the property. Even if all roads were privatized it would still be illegal to drive drunk, as it should be.


I really think that says it all, doesn't it? You're basically saying that the "rights" of an entity (not even a person, but a collective whose only purpose is to seek profit) trump the safety of actual people, to the extent that it's OK to turn an important travel/trade route into a death trap if they own it.


That is what I am saying?


EDIT: It's what you were saying before you edited. :P

Re: Smoking

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:32 pm
by Botef
Wow Sarvis, fail reading comprehension much?