smoking ban

Truth sucks and anyone who listens to them is teh suxs!!!1

I think everyone here is aware that being around smoke does not cause Instant Death. As for smoke areas...those are laughable. I can't count the number of times I have been in the non smoking section only to be bothered by smoke.

I can't wait for the smoking ban to come into force next year. I look forward to being able to go out and not coming home smelling like an ashtray.

*shrugs* That's you. I'm mildly allergic to cigarette smoke ad have rarely been that bothered by smoke in my area. As long as it's not so bad that it fills my lungs.

I'm not sure smokers really grasp how far their smoke spreads in open-air areas. I can easily smell a smoker from a good twenty feet away. When driving I can smell if someone has a cigarette hanging out their car window even if my windows are up. When my roomate's brother was visiting he smoked out on the balcony with the door open and the smoke came right on in, down the hall, and under my bedroom door.

I'm not worried about these little incidents adding up to my death or anything, but it stinks, it irritates my eyes, and it sticks to my hair and clothes. It's just plain rude to expose people to that. If I were any less of a lady I'd sit in the smoking areas at school and just fart to my hearts content. But, uh... I lost my point but I'm seriously tempted to do that sometimes.

Wow, lots of bitching.

.opt

Is it different from any other thread in this forum?

Haha...true.

I don't like the fact that people refer to non-smokers as if they're some
brotherhood against smokers. I don't know who the hell all of you are but
I don't smoke and I enjoy smokey places. I don't mind non-smokey places,
but in places like bars or clubs smoke adds to the atmosphere. Of course
according to crazybayman there's something wrong with my mind simply
because I don't give a if people around me are smoking. I think a lot
of people have started to ride the bandwagon and it sounds like there's a
lot of exaggeration going on.

The fact that smoking has been compared--numerous times infact--to
doing heroin is...well hilarious. What's even crazier is that the heroin
that's being compared to cigarettes is on the same level as smoking
marijuana. Dear lord, the melodrama!

.opt

*skimming replies*

A lot of you say that it should be up to the pub owners to disallow smoking in their establishments. This would do NOTHING, as by doing that their driving away clientelle, causing them to go to their competition down the street, where they allow smoking. Therefore NO pubs or bars would disallow smoking, because they would give bars who allow smoking an unfair advantage, and us non-smokers would still have to suffer that gross, disgusting toxic $hit those smokers blow into the air (which is INCREDIBALLY f#ckin' stupid).

That may have been true several decades ago, when the majority of people were either smokers or apathetic to smoking. However, today most people are against exposing their kids or themselves to second-hand smoking in any fashion, and are adamant about it. Since most people either don't smoke or don't want to smoke around their family, most restaurants would be either non-smoking, or have a seperate smoking section. Most bars would allow smoking. And there would be exceptions, such as one bar in an area banning smoking to get a monopoly on the drinking, non-smoking customers(if there was such a demand). When the government's out of it, and the people actually voice their opinion, the supply meets the demand. If a lot of people in an area demand non-smoking restaurants, many restaurants will turn non-smoking(or have seperate sections) to meet this demand, because they want to business. When the government steps in, the owners lose any incentive to remain non-smoking, depending on how well this law is enforced(and, where small restauarants and pubs are concerned, I can only assume not very much).
If the people in an area don't care enough to voice and act on their opinions, then nothing happens. Then, it's a case of "tough ." It is not the government's responsibility to think and make decisions for everybody about smoking and their tolerance for it.

In your country maybe people prefer it but over here(at least in chicago) the number of "bars" keeps getting going down because people don't want that. They want an up scale drinking spot that you can take the family to. No dank, dark or gloomy bars filled with smoke.

Eh, maybe it's something cultural, but when I go to bars it's at night. Between eleven and six in the morning. And seriously, that's not my idea of family fun.

And anyway, if people in Chicago prefer a place where you can take your family to, then where is the problem on the whole letting the bar manager decide? It should benefit the ones that ban smoking on their bars. I really can't see the problem. You want a bar without smoke? Go to one. I prefer it with smoke, I realise it's not healthy but I really don't care to my health to the extreme of avoiding cigarrette smoke around me on a friday night every two weeks. And I can't stand the idea of my favourite dank, dark gloomy bars getting a smoke ban supported by people who would never really visit them. Because the whole point of those places is to be like that, because that's the atmosphere I like. Some bars could ban smoking for all I care. But many need to mantain it.

Non-smoking sections don't really help. Not unless they are completely sealed off and have different vent and such systems(so basically two seperate air tight buildings).

Shulp wasn't kidding about how far smoking can go if the wind is right. As for overexageration. Well I had the pneumonia to prove it, not to mention I could show you my grades for that quarter. Pneumonia plus school equals bad grades.

However I will aggree that very isolated exposure isn't overly dangerous. But if everytime I go to the supermarket or the local gas station(the emplyees' smoke or a few do) I have to deal with it, it kinda adds up. Particually since with our income we stop everytime we are in the vicinity and have spare money(since we are prolly out at home anyways).

How much passive smoking did you have, Shun? I mean, the same way I defend smoke on bars, I don't believe people should be exposed to smoke everywhere. I believe banning smoking in the streets is over-reacting, it's true smoke can travel quite a lot, but well, most gets disipated with normal air in the first few meters of flight.

But yes, I specially think parents should be caerful with passive smoking. My father is a smoker, he smokes a lot, and well, even though I just take a cigarrette from time to time, I have that particular broken voice, wich hey, I believe it sounds very nice and is useful for people like me who have to rely on their voice for their jobs or future jobs, but well, probably my lungs aint that good. Or maybe my voice is natural, I am not sure, but the truth is I can smoke Ducados or marihuana without coughing even a little, wich probably means I have inhaled so much in my life I have becomed used to it. That can't be good.

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura

However I will aggree that very isolated exposure isn't overly dangerous. But if everytime I go to the supermarket or the local gas station(the emplyees' smoke or a few do) I have to deal with it, it kinda adds up. Particually since with our income we stop everytime we are in the vicinity and have spare money(since we are prolly out at home anyways).

the amount of harm second-hand smoking causes is irrelevent. Actually, if it caused more harm, that should only galvanize people to take their families only to non-smoking establishments, thus taking away any necessity for government involvement.

Governments are not there to raise your kids, they are not there to say "you don't like being in public places with smokers." I don't? What if I'm a smoker? If I'm a smoker(which is perfectly legal) and own a bar, why can't I allow people to smoke? It's my bar. If non-smokers or families don't want to be around smokers, they won't come. If I lose sufficient business, I'll be forced to change my policy.

I am not sure exactly how much smoke I have enhaled... But I do what I can to aviod it.. but prolly 1/3-2/3's of adults and about 1/4-1/3 of underage smokers smoke here. Real bad. Our gas station will even sell underage(and in a small town like this most know everyone). In fact the place has been written up a few times by state troopers. I was there when the lady was caught... was quite funny(her reaction "Ah .. I hat it when this happens" or some such).. though I think she got fired for it.. which isn't funny.

Anyways I think I mentioned above that if there was at least one non-smoking bar in the area the rest of the bar owners should be allowed to do as they wish. Though I guess the gov doesn't exactly have to mandate it since many times it happens anyways. But I think your veiw on how many aviod smoking areas is highly larger then it actually is. Almost all non-smokers around here could care less(I am an exception.. but I have also suffered serious lung damage from second hand smoke). First thing I get asked when I go to a new doctor is, "you smoke alot don't you?" Hell no. Can't stand it, cough up a storm.

But I wouldn't even dare banning it altogether that ain't wise nor right.

P.S. part of the reason may be I am highly succeptable to chemicals. I only need 1/8-1/4 dose of normal med to get fully med-ed.. and actually if I continue on the medicine for a few weeks I tend to end up in the hospital from "allergic reaction". Really I think it is that I either allergic to every chem out there or else I am just sensitive(since perfume can knock me out or at least make me very very dizzy in little ammounts.. I'll go with sensitive). Though, bad or good, I seem to become more insensitive every year.

passive smoking kills. fact. preveting deaths is the governments job. what we pay taxes for. and so preenting passive smoking prevents death and the government has done it's job.

Originally Posted by Autumn Rain

Originally Posted by crazybayman

How is it screwing over smokers, when its helping them, because it is in their best interest to quit. And who cares if its unfair for smokers.

How is it helping people who enjoy smoking, by singling them out and making it harder for them to smoke?

Its helping them because its promoting them quiting a bad habit that's gonna kill them in the long run. Therefore it should be harder for them to smoke! Isn't suicide illegal? I know its not at the same magnitude, but its completely justifiable for a government to ban certain things in public places if its going to kill the people doing it.

Plus, as EVERYONE knows its unhealthy and unpleasant for the people around them. THAT alone should be enough to ban smoking. I grew up in a non-smoking family, and the mere sight of a filled ashtray turns my stomach. If someone were to spark up a cigarette right beside me in a restaurant, or in close quarters I would consider it rude, because its bad for my health, stinks, and would make me smell like I was smoking. If someone tried to spark one up in my house, I would tell them to go outside.

The $hit is just disgusting. I can't believe there's people out there who think its alright. Bars and pubs is the LAST establishment here to disallow smoking. That means the only place people can smoke is outside and in their homes (and many don't even do that because it stinks up their house and its UNHEALTHY for their kids). Thank God.