Adult rights threatened due to 'da children...

I live in a more conservative area where people want LESS government in our lives rather than be like a socialist nation where our every move is dictated. Yet, a columnist for the local paper claims how he supports smoking-in-public bans for the sake of those children. He says how second hand smoke is responsible for almost every childhood ailment...and how adults need to set an example for those sprogs.

For one thing, this ass is supporting smoking ban in OUTDOOR public areas. I can understand restaurants and other indoor places. I really do not give a damn about how I look to those sprogs or their maladies. It is the duty of the parents to instill certain values in their offspring. As for illnesses, exhaust from cars is no better. Forget this following the airline ban on peanuts because one chyuld may get sick. I am over it...

"FUCK WORK"

People who support smoking bans simply because of "the children" are ill informed jerk offs. Second hand smoke probably has no more to do with childhood illness than say the huge amounts of untested chemicals we injest on a daily basis via our food supply, the increasing amounts of car exhaust or the complete lack of physical excersise.

I'm not even a smoker, but I do know many bartenders and other waitstaff in bars who have experienced the direct negative impact of our city wide ban on smoking in bars. Sure, they aren't going to get lung cancer now, but I guess it's alright if they starve to death in the cold because all the bar patrons are staying home, with their tips, where they can drink and smoke in peace. While large, chain owned, drinking establishments (hooters! YAY!) can absorb the losses and stay open, alot of small, neighborhood taverns have had to close their doors becuase they simply could not withstand the 30% cut in their income for the several months it took drinking smokers to get used to the ban.

If I wanted to do something to "protect the children" I'd probably care enough to have some of my own.

see, all this smoking ban does it make a demon out of smokers, now during prohibition, they planned after everyone was dry, to ban smoking. its a puritanical idea that someone somewhere, must be having fun, so lets ban it.

they complain about oooh smoking is bad, it contains so many toxins.. but as any toxicologist says poison is in the dosage. Lets ban cars for the sake of the children. in the story below, how do they know the health of the kids isnt caused by another source and they "BLAME" smoking.

what i really want to do is take some plastic fake cigs into a bar and sit there, you cant be arrested or the place fined.. as its not a real cig.. see what happens then..


****
Major roads 'harm children's lungs'

Children who grow up near major roads are more likely to develop asthma and other respiratory diseases, according to research published today.

Otherwise-healthy children who were non-asthmatic and non-smokers experienced a significant decrease in lung function from traffic pollution. This suggests that all children, not just susceptible sub-groups, are potentially affected by traffic exposure

A similar impact was seen in both boys and girls. The researchers found the results were not caused by class, other pollution sources or exposure to tobacco smoke

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/26/nroads26a.xml

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

Smoking should be illegal. Period. It smells bad and is physically harmful to anyone who comes into contact with it. Ban it "for the humans", not just "for the children".

CFScorpio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Smoking should be illegal. Period. It smells bad
> and is physically harmful to anyone who comes into
> contact with it. Ban it "for the humans", not just
> "for the children".

Driving carries the threat of physical harm and death. Exhaust fumes from cars have a horrible odor and is not safe to breathe. Ask anyone who has worked as a toll booth operator! Alcohol is very dangerous and has caused more deaths as well as mental dysfunction for many people as well as harm. Eating fast-food is bad for the health. McDonald's smells like hell when I drive past one of those places...egads!

Smoking IS bad. I will not argue that all. You are presumptuous to claim that it should be illegal for me or anyone else to smoke cigarettes just because YOU don't like it. I would have no desire to be around anyone who hates tobacco smoke or the effects when I do light up but it is not YOUR right to dictate how I live my life. I smoke on the balcony where I live or in a park but not right next to people so it is no one's business.

You don't like the fact that people smoke...too bad! It is the same as people with children or pro-lifers who want to make it illegal to use contraception or to have abortions. Their claim is how birth control or abortion leads to breast cancer as well as the the downfall of society due to less worker bees. It would also be the same as telling a person with an STD that s/he cannot marry or even have sex with contraception due to risks passing on the illness despite using "protection" or the other partner being aware of the situation. Even the "aware" partner can lie and say s/he did not know of the STD in the event "protection" failed...

"FUCK WORK"

Shit smells bad too, however I would be soundly against any law that bans farmers from fertilizing their fields. The over use of perfume is equally stinky to smoke (in my estimation) yet I would have to say that a law banning the use of perfumed substances would be wrong. Going out in public while ill poses a health threat to others, and again, I am soundly against any law that would ban people from going out into public while ill.
This nanny state mentality where people want laws requiring good health practices is simply wrong. Simply put, if you really don't like smoking, and you think it is such a dire health threat to anyone within smelling distance, then be honest about it and ban tobacco altogether.

Public toilets can be banned since certain people can get ill from the smell of shit. Moos with loud shrieklings give me headaches in the mall but I cannot demand these noisemakers be banned. The flight issue was different due to safety. An adult having a tantrum on a plane would not be tolerated. Getting on a plane means a person gives up certain liberties such as causing a ruckus or smoking.

Feh, I am with you re: the fragrance issue even though overly-perfumed women make me feel more ill than fumes from cars or certain ciggies. If a ban on fragrances from perfumes or colognes are enforced in public, who is to say how certain shower soaps or shampoos will not be included in the bans?

In '96, I worked in one call center where seafood was barred from the lunchroom because ONE employee, an attention whore & hypochondriac, said how those "smells" would result in an ambulance coming to get her. I was one of the sheeple back then and deep-sixed tuna sandwiches from my lunch.Two women revolted, though, and brought back shrimp from a take-out place. When asked about that poor, poor woman and her 'issues', the response was, "Fuck her. Let this go to the labor board." It never went further. This attitude should have come out long before the two co-workers felt how ONE person would not restrict their eating habits.

Many Americans want a socialist nanny state to dictate what others can do. If someone does not like tobacco smoke, all s/he needs to do is move the fuck down in public if the smoker lights up at a park or on the street. I have no problem with business owners deciding what goes on INSIDE of their establishments but ONE person and government will NOT dictate MY personal lifestyle choices.

I fucking hate people with booze on their breath...but guess-the-fuck what??? I stay away from drinkers. So, so simple...

"FUCK WORK"

when does the state have a right to alter your own personal lifestyle.

should we allow the government control every second of our lives, for the sake of da children or ourselves. in regards to smoking, eating junk food, breathing fumes from cars, etc.. where would it stop, where does personal responsibility, and government sanctioned bullying start and end. i dont object to how you live your life, that has got nothing to do with me, (second hand smoke is an illusion theres more dangerous pollution on the roads than any 2nd hand smoke).. so why should my life be controlled by anyone else. MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE HOW I LIVE MY LIFE thats the ultimate freedom

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

My support of indoor smoking bans is purely selfish. I'm a frequent bar patron but I don't smoke. I hate waking up with smoke smell in my hair, and a sore throat. Not to mention, based on anecdotal evidence, second-hand smoke induces hangovers. :chug

That being said, I'm against an all-out smoking ban because, let's face it, if they can shove that down smokers' throats, it's not a far cry from banning, for example, alcohol.

mercurior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> when does the state have a right to alter your own
> personal lifestyle.
>
When your personal lifestyle is physically harmful to others. Figure out how to smoke so that I don't smell it and get an asthma attack or cancer from it, and I won't complain.

CF VTer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> That being said, I'm against an all-out smoking
> ban because, let's face it, if they can shove that
> down smokers' throats, it's not a far cry from
> banning, for example, alcohol.

I doubt it. Smoking causes physical harm to others, whereas alcohol does not. If you drink next to me, it has absolutely no effect on me, unless you get violent or drive your car and run me over. But we already have laws against assault and DWI, so banning alcohol would not be necessary.

Besides, an alcohol ban was tried in the earlier part of the last century and didn't work.

We agree, but you're also in the UK, aren't you? America has a pretty loud minority trying to convince people that alcohol is the root of all evil, and everyone who drinks goes out and drives 100MPH through school zones, and runs over "the kids". Then, when we get home, we go inside and beat our wives, kick our dogs, and pass out on the lawn. If a drinker happens to have kids, the kids are also abused, and are scarred for life!

I'd just say that a bar, where people go to ruin their livers, load up on fried appetizers, pick up one night stands and increase their risks for STD's, might not be the best place to shove "good health practices" up people's asses. If a bar owner wants their establishment to be smoke free, they should be encouraged to. However, if a bar owner knows their patrons are mostly smokers, they should have the right to allow smoking in their establishment. Thusly, people would have a choice as to which establishment they wanted to frequent, and the "free market" would be the decider, as opposed to "the state".

In my city, when they passed the ban on smoking in ALL bars, they used the argument that it was to protect the health of the workers. I have never known a person who worked in a bar who didn't expect to be exposed to smoke, and who didn't accept it as part of their employment. If they didn't want to deal with smoke, they would quit and work in a resturant. Every bar employee I know, however, expected to be able to suppliment their crapass hourly income with tips, and relied on those tips to pay for their basic living expenses. When they banned smoking from bars, the patrons stayed home, and the tips dried up. Many of the smaller, neighborhood, bars closed, and alot of my friends ended up either losing their jobs, or having to live on (healthy!) ramen for months while adjusting to the upwards of 50% decrease in their monthly income. I just wonder, which is worse for one's health. Willing exposure to second hand smoke, or increased stress from income/job loss, and having to eat high sodium, high fat, processed and cheap foods simply because they occupy space in your gut.

see there is things called second hand drinking deaths.. i kid you not, if you go into a bar, and you dont drink just go to the toilet, then come out of the bar, and get hit by a car by a sober drinker.. thats an alcohol related death..

there should be smokers bars, and smokefree bars.. i have no problem in that.. its the draconian ban for everything, during prohibition whats not said was the plan to ban smoking.. but alcohol was the main focus..

there should be smoke rooms, in bars, sealed from the rest, a sort of public bar and a private bar, one for smoking one for not, and even have airlocks.. that would make everyone happier, apart from the nuerotic health panickers..

(btw there is far more pollution in car exhaust than ever in a cigarette smoke first or 2nd hand wise yet no one wants to ban cars)

if there was something like a private club, who's barstaff smoke, and all the partons smoke, and since its a private club, you know its a smoke zone.. then whats the harm..

the biggest problem is saying scorp "When your personal lifestyle is physically harmful to others. Figure out how to smoke so that I don't smell it and get an asthma attack or cancer from it, and I won't complain."

anything could be termed physically harmful, sex, thats potentially harmful, driving a car thats potentially harmful, drinking, eating.. climbing cliffs, where would it stop..

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

CFScorpio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mercurior Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > when does the state have a right to alter your
> own
> > personal lifestyle.
> >
> When your personal lifestyle is physically harmful
> to others. Figure out how to smoke so that I don't
> smell it and get an asthma attack or cancer from
> it, and I won't complain.

Not a problem. You do not have to be around me or anyone of your choosing. If a smoker is around you, that person has the obligation to not light up. However, you do not have the right to tell me how to live my life re: smoking especially if I choose not to be around you. Very simple...right?

"FUCK WORK"

Smokers And Obese People To Be Denied Health Care The obese and smokers could be denied priority NHS treatment if they do not change their lifestyles, under plans being considered by ministers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=424870&in_page_id=1774

Maybe the NHS should also stop treating people with AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases because they engage in sex! - particularly if they engage in gay sex.

Maybe the NHS should also stop treating people who get skin cancer because of their willful exposure to the sun.

Maybe those in car accidents do not deserve NHS treatment because they chose to drive around in cars.

Where does it all stop, eh?

CFScorpio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CF VTer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > That being said, I'm against an all-out smoking
> > ban because, let's face it, if they can shove
> that
> > down smokers' throats, it's not a far cry from
> > banning, for example, alcohol.
>
> I doubt it. Smoking causes physical harm to
> others, whereas alcohol does not. If you drink
> next to me, it has absolutely no effect on me,
> unless you get violent or drive your car and run
> me over. But we already have laws against assault
> and DWI, so banning alcohol would not be
> necessary.
>
> Besides, an alcohol ban was tried in the earlier
> part of the last century and didn't work.


Scorpio, you take risks every single day if you drive. Other drivers can cause you physical harm and you are at risk once you put the key in the ignition. We cannot be a society who wants something banned because "it might hurt me" because there are far riskier things than tobacco. It is the same as parents wanting to restrict other adults activity under the guise of protecting children.

People going out in public or to work sick should also be a crime? After all, I sure as hell resent being exposed to other people's germs and flus. I've gotten sick at work many times after one or two co-workers come in raging with a virus or the flu and the entire call center gets it. That affected me. I may have lost wages if I had to call out due to feeling to sick to work or made it worse when I could not afford to take a day off without pay or risk getting fired due to attendance policies. That was far worse than being near a smoker when I was a non-smoker.

It goes back to what I mentioned about STDs. Involvement with a person with a sexually transmitted disease scares me more. The infected individual may use "protection" but not tell the partner of the disease. Condoms are a safeguard but do not totally protect. Should those with STDs be banned from sexual activity and have their names published - even if their partners are willing and informed - to warn others just as you want smoking to be a crime?

"FUCK WORK"

When are people going to figure out that this is a PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE??? The only person who should decide whether smoking is allowed in any particular bar or restaurant is the OWNER of that bar or restaurant. There are a lot of people - even smokers - who don't want to be around smoke in those places. The market has already responded to these desires, which is why there are already so many VOLUNTARILY smoke-free bars and restaurants. Interesting news about the issue here:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118460.html#comments

Condoms do protect against the "fluid borne" STD's, such as HIV, gonorrhea and chlamydia. Condoms can protect against "dry" STD's, such as syphillis, genital warts and herpes as long as the infectious sores are in areas that the condom covers. However, these sores can also be in areas that a condom doesn't cover, and thusly...condoms do not protect against ALL STD's ALL the time. Of course, seat belts do not prevent car accident deaths all the time either, but it's certianly better than nothing.

Pirate Jo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When are people going to figure out that this is a
> PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE??? The only person who
> should decide whether smoking is allowed in any
> particular bar or restaurant is the OWNER of that
> bar or restaurant. There are a lot of people -
> even smokers - who don't want to be around smoke
> in those places. The market has already responded
> to these desires, which is why there are already
> so many VOLUNTARILY smoke-free bars and
> restaurants. Interesting news about the issue
> here:
>
> http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118460.html#commen
> ts


Exactly...

"FUCK WORK"

then theres herpes virus, the one on the lips can be transmitted to wherever you touch them, theres stories about it being on the eye balls, there may just be a tingle, and your still infectious..

yes pirate its a personal issue, for the owners, if you dont like it, then someone will open up a non smoking bar.. if there is a market for it.. and it seems there is.. blanket bans dont work. all the places that have the ban, the bars have lost business. some upto 60% of customers arent going, as they get more beer and sit at home, and drink more, and smoke more.. so instead of you going out and maybe having 5 pints in 3 or 4 hours, you stay home, and have 6 or 7, since you can sit down and just fall into bed.. and thats so much better ??

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

mercurior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > the biggest problem is saying scorp "When your
> personal lifestyle is physically harmful to
> others. Figure out how to smoke so that I don't
> smell it and get an asthma attack or cancer from
> it, and I won't complain."
>
> anything could be termed physically harmful, sex,
> thats potentially harmful, driving a car thats
> potentially harmful, drinking, eating.. climbing
> cliffs, where would it stop..

That's a ridiculous argument. There is NO QUESTION that cigarette smoking is physically harmful to both smokers and people exposed to secondhand smoke. No ifs, ands or buts (butts? LOL). There are no brands of cigarettes that are harmless.

Cars, on the other hand, can SOMETIMES hurt people, but usually don't. If 95% of cars and drivers got into accidents daily, then I'd say you had a valid analogy there. But it just isn't comparable.

Ditto for food and alcohol. Some types of foods are harmful to some people, some of the time. But not all foods are harmful to everyone all the time, as cigarettes are. Most of the time, food is beneficial and necessary for human survival. Cigarettes are not. If you don't have food, you die. If you don't have cigarettes, do you die? No, of course not!

Alcohol can make some people sick if consumed in large quantities, and can make some people into violent assholes who physically harm others, SOME OF THE TIME. But not ALL THE TIME!

I don't see how anyone can argue that cars, food and alcohol can be compared to cigarettes. It is not a logical argument.

mercurior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> then theres herpes virus, the one on the lips can
> be transmitted to wherever you touch them, theres
> stories about it being on the eye balls, there
> may just be a tingle, and your still infectious..

True. And there are herpes lawsuits. In most U.S. states, and in the U.K., there are laws against transmitting or exposing someone to an STD without the other person's prior knowledge or consent. People can and have been sued over transmitting herpes. That whole "You are in a bar, so you deserve whatever happens to you and you know what you are getting into" argument does not hold up in a court of law.

CF VTer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We agree, but you're also in the UK, aren't you?
>
Me? Are you joking? Why would you think I lived in the U.K.? I mention Texas and NY in most of my posts.

cigarettes do not affect everyone, theres people aged 80 who smoke and they are ill due to it. it all depends on genes, other factors. and car pollution causes more of the same chemicals that is in cig smoke..

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein