|
Date: 7/5/2008 4:53:00 AM ( Chatmin-Co )
hmmm. well in australia they have been banning smoking in bars an clubs for ages now... its in full affect. If you have ever worked in a club an your a non smoker let me tell you its HELL, you stink of it, it hurts your eyes... so your speach is nice, but there are two sides of everything. |
Date: 7/5/2008 5:00:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 27414
I realize there are sides to everything and I wasa non-smoker for years and performing in smoke-filled arenas. But I didn't fault anyone for what they chose to do. The town I live close to is constantly putting smelly exhausts into the air from their factories. And yet I see NO laws enacted barring them from doing this.  |
Date: 7/5/2008 5:09:00 AM
From Authorid: 26303
Did you ever wonder why you didn't smoke for years, then took it up? I'd say that smoke you breathed in eventually got you addicted. Thats how many young kids get hooked so easily, being around parents in small areas breathing in smoke. I'm not having a go at you. I smoked for around 25 years. I never realised just how offensive the smell was until I gave it up. I can't stand the smell of it now. It gets on my skin, and I have to shower. It's about others being able to eat etc without having to suck in smoke. You can smoke outside, and come in and eat. You will get used to the bans, like was already said, we've had them for years. I was a smoker when they first came in, and the difference in restaurants was amazing. When I gave up I was no longer able to attend any of our pubs. I couldn't stand the stench, nor breathe. I would get an instant blocked nose. Still do if I am near a smoker. But was unbearable in a pub. Guess you didn't post to hear about my woes with smoking, but it's a view that maybe you had not heard before.  |
|
Date: 7/5/2008 5:13:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 27414
This post is not actually about smoking so much as it is about losing a freedom that soon could and will turn into something more. What I mean is that, if they can get away with this, what's next? |
|
Date: 7/5/2008 5:15:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 27414
FOR THE NON-SMOKERS: This might seem like a god-send now but wait until something is banned by legalities that DOES affect you! |
Date: 7/5/2008 5:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 63026
Why can't we have the "freedom" to do anything then. I mean seriously why is it illegal to do pot, cocaine, marijuana? Why can't girls walk around topless, like some European countries? Why can't we take beer outside regulated events, if it's legal to drink it at events, or inside our own homes? Why do we have to conceal our weapons, when the 2nd Ammendment states: The right to bear arms?  |
|
Date: 7/5/2008 5:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 26303
I understand what you are saying. LIke I said, I was a smoker when the bans came in here. Initially I was up in arms, but then saw the logic in it. It's the taxes on smokes that still annoy me. Cigs are very expensive here, much dearer than over there. The govt. gets a huge cut. |
|
Date: 7/5/2008 5:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 63026
And for the record, I am glad these non-smoking laws have gone in effect. My eyes don't burn, the air is cleaner, and it's just a better atmosphere without seeing people having those cancer sticks in their mouths. |
Date: 7/5/2008 5:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 10245
no one forces you to work in a smoke filled club or arena. that's a personal choice.... just like smoking. If smoke bothers you, avoid it. Get a job in retail, or a bank, or an office. I can't escape the diesel fuel exhaust that is a constant outside (and inside) my home, but I chose to buy this house (like you chose your job), now I get to deal with the results of my choice. I haven't started a truck ban... yet ;o)  |
|
Date: 7/5/2008 5:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 26303
Just for the record I do really understand your arguement, it's not about the smoking but the rights of all, be them smokers or not. That the govt. is taking away the rights of smokers to smoke. I do get it, but I'm afraid your post is turning into a smoking debate, and I guess I'm partly to blame for that. Sorry! |
|
Date: 7/5/2008 5:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 10245
PsyGuy: 1) look into how drugs were made illegal and you'll have your answers as to why: a whole bunch of politics. 2) Because Americans are mostly puritanical prudes. 3) Because someone decided it was the venue's responsibility, not the event goer's responsibility, to know and practice moderation. 4) Good question! |
|
Date: 7/5/2008 5:38:00 AM
From Authorid: 10245
I'm all for non-smoking restaurants, but I think that choice should be left up the proprietor... He should be able to cater to his customers the environment that THEY want. |
Date: 7/5/2008 5:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 51876
I have been going to shows for years and don't smoke ciggerattes.Smoke a cigar every now and then.I just wrote a post on the Orwellian Generation(the current one) that is growing up without personal freedom and in fear of individuality.All the school shootings, the current tween media craze and even American Idol produce young people devoid of personality and doing what "the Group" wants. It is like our whole system has become a High School Musical.I went to a high school in the 80's in Texas that had a designated "Smoke Break" like a recess where the kids could go smoke.I wonder what all these anti smoking fanatics would have thought about that.Personal Rights are dictated like a Right of the Government to do so. Tx. Sin tax on Alcohol,Tobacco, Nudee Bars and the Lottery Pay for public schools here among just about everything on the budget.They promote it as such.The Anti-smoking laws are different in every State and Country.They keep changing.They sure could put their time and energy into doing better things, I think.  |
Date: 7/5/2008 6:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 64365
I agree Smoker's have rights, but so do non-smokers. You've made a great point. I agree with Aussie Girl. When I didn't smoke just being near someone who did got the smell of their cigarette smoke in my nostrils, and that's all I smelled. I could smell it in my hair, my clothes, on my skin...taste it in my mouth. I grew up with parents who smoked, so I constantly breathed in what they exhaled, and the smoke curling off the tip of their cigarettes...and I eventually started smoking. I've quit and started again several times. I don't have a problem with smoke free restaurants, or smoking bans. While a smoker does have rights, a smoker does not have the right to infringe on the rights of a non-smoker and vice versa. Since it is an acquired habit, and is a health hazard, and does contribute to pollution, then the smoker should understand these bans are implemented to be fair to everyone. Is it really necessary to smoke in a pub, or a restaurant, or other public premise? Nah...smoke at home, or in your car, or somewhere you won't be infringing on anyone's rights. It's okay to holler for your rights, but respect other's as well.  |
|
Date: 7/5/2008 6:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 64365
ooops...the Government is going to do what it's going to do until we stand together and refuse to allow it...then that's going to bring up another problem... |
Date: 7/5/2008 6:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 37101
I think businesses should have the freedom to declare their property smoke-free or not. I work in a hotel and restaurant, and we're smoke-free because it makes life easier for our housekeeper and slows the depreciation on the rooms. Your post seemed to argue the slippery slope, which is just a pure, exaggerated hypothetical. -  |
|
Date: 7/5/2008 6:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 26303
A new law is about to be place over here in Aust concerning smokers. There will be outrage, but I can understand why it is to be done. They are going to make it against the law to smoke in your car whilst there are children in it. Now I know there are going to be arguements like, it's my car, they're my kids. But, really, we shouldn't smoke in confined areas and expect the kids to suck in the air. If parents can't protect their kids by using common sense, then the govt steps in. But, like I said, there will be outrage when it actually comes into affect. |
Date: 7/5/2008 8:42:00 AM
From Authorid: 35178
I'm sorry but I disagree. I can understand that you say we have been mislead about how harmful it is but the fact still remains that it is harmful. I don't think you have the right to increase my risk of cancer by even 1%. And even if it wont give others cancer it still effects the health of others. I can't be around smoke. My eyes burn, my throat itches, my head throbs. And it does not just end when I leave the person smoking because the smell is in my clothes and in my hair. My mother-in-law smokes and a few weekends ago my husband and I went over for a party. She started to smoke as we all sat around outside. I said nothing and I sat there because she is my mother-in-law, its her house, and I just wanted to be polite. However, it was horrible. I left there feeling ill and I continued to feel ill for the rest of the evening. I'm sorry but second hand smoke does effect my health!  |
Date: 7/5/2008 8:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 14909
Everytime the govt. gets their hands on things they go from bad to worse. I myself rather deal with bad than worse.  |
Date: 7/5/2008 9:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 3901
Bruiex, I'm only 21, graduated in 2005 and my high school had 10 minute breaks between classes designated for smokers. As for this discussion, I believe in choice. I live in Canada and there is a smoke ban coming into effect. There is no smoking in restaurants, bars, clubs arenas etc. You must be a certain amount of space away from doorways and storefronts if you're smoking. It's illegal to smoke in a vehicle with anyone under 18 as a passenger and cigarettes and tobacco are no longer allowed to be seen what-so-ever in stores. I think some of the decisions are smart ones, but somethings, like always, go a little too far. As a smoker, I respect non-smokers. I do not smoke around children, I do not smoke around someone I know has breathing problems. I do my best to only smoke away from people who don't and to wash after a cigarette because I know the smell can be offensive. But I also know that not all smokers are as respectful. I think we elected our government to take care and lead us. I don't always agree with everything they do, but I see the ban on smoking as being beneficial in the long run. Smokers are going to continue smoking until something drastic effects them, and even then they may not quit. But the generation growing up with the ban will know no different and maybe, just maybe they will never start smoking.  |
Date: 7/5/2008 9:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 63121
In Canada they have some provincial bans on smoking. I never thought of it as a control thing until now. I miss that little bit of freedom. I makes you wonder what they will take away next for "a good reason"... Thatx for sharing.  |
Date: 7/5/2008 9:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 53961
I quit smoking 26 years ago. I live in Iowa and I am glad this law is finally passed. I am sorry I ever subjected another person to my nasty habit and still mourn the loss of my mother to lung cancer due to years of smoking. She was the last one in our family to quit. My father was a veteran of 21+ years and I NEVER heard him say that he had a RIGHT to smoke.  |
|
Date: 7/5/2008 10:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 51876
I understand everyone's reasons for the smoking ban.It just goes a little far enforcing it.I would be more concerned with Coal-fired electric plants,concrete producers and 100,00 cars sitting idle in every major city, every day than woing about some second hand smoke,I don't think they should be blowing it in everyone's face but to have the government passing laws on every level of conduct is starting to get surreal.My Grandmother started smoking when she was 11 and died from it at 72, I tried to get her to quit in her 60's and it didn't last and in fact she became angry at my intrusion in her life and said it was none of my beeswax.She said "I know it is going to kill me eventually but I do not care"! She accepted her consequences.There is not much you can do about that.Did I like it ,No, could I do anything about it? NO, so for me it has become a acceptance of a person's rights as a individual. |
Date: 7/5/2008 10:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 63725
Politicians - at least good ones - vote with their publics majority opinions. The more contacts opposed or in favor of an issue may affect the votes from congress. I have never smoked and don't plan to. Genetically it would be suicide since I know it has killed my Mother. Another family member has a serious heart condition and being around smoke makes her terribly ill. When a person's body only functions at a low capacity it is affected greatly by smoke of any kind as well as chemicals. There are supposed to be regulations on factories as well and if one notices that ir doesn't appear that this is being enforced there are options to require an investigation. I am thrilled that Omaha is smoke free and I am happy Iowa is going that direction. It doesn't mean one can't smoke it just means that where they choose to smoke will be affected. Any bad smells including cigarette smoke affect me greatly as I become physically ill if I have just eaten a meal in a restaurant and encouner any bad smells afterward. I have lost entire meals from such exposure. Not that it would be such a bad thing to lose weight but I prefer to do it the healthy way instead of involuntary bulemia. Are we willing to fight for a "personal freedom" to do harm to others? Are we willing to vote for suicide by people who choose to slowly kill themselves with inhalation of a poison? Tobacco was created for other healthy reasons. For example it can be made into a poltice to place on a wound, made into a paste for bee stings and other insect bite, for making tobacco water for use as an insecticide and to get rid of lice and for other uses. The surgeon general's report states that "Tobacco is the single greatest cause of disease and premature death in America today, and is responsible for more than 430,000 deaths each year. Nearly 25 percent of adult Americans currently smoke, and 3,000 children and adolescents become regular users of tobacco every day. The societal costs of tobacco-related death and disease approach $100 billion each year." The main reason tobacco is not treated as a Schedule 1 substance is because the government makes too much money from the taxes on it.  |
Date: 7/5/2008 11:12:00 AM
From Authorid: 51635
I think that smoking bans have gone too far. As far as the food market, ok I can see no smoking there, but bars, clubs and eateries, that should be up to the owner. It directly affects their bottom line when they can't accomidate smokers. Personally, if I can't sit and smoke after a meal, I get up and leave, I don't order another drink or desert. That takes money away from the owner AND the wait staff. Smokers usually recognize that if they sit and smoke, they are taking up more time that could be used for someone else to use the table, therefore they usually tip more than if they just get up and leave when done eating. Hotels have had to reduce the number of smoking rooms they have available. Now they are even talking about not letting me smoke in my own car or home. When the government want to be able to tell you what you can and can't do in your own home, behind closed doors, there is definately a problem, a big problem...  |
Date: 7/5/2008 11:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 63962
My opinion on it, even though I can see the legalities and rights aspect of it, is that it doesn't take smokers hardly anything to get up and go outside (and in some places walk 25 feet or so) to light up. It's not really physically exerting, and not that big a deal. There's people with asthma, lung conditions, etc., and even if 2nd-hand smoke isn't as bad as the gov't says it is, it STILL affects people with many respiratory conditions. So, as someone else said, there's two sides to every argument and every coin.  |
Date: 7/5/2008 1:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 51247
I agree with you whole heartedly. Currently im a Semi-Non , i smoke a bit but only as a way to handle stress. Recently in Alberta the smoking bans and restrictions have become completely insane. No Advertisement at all is not allowed to be shown, not only that but all stores that have a pharmacy < which would be pretty much every supermarket> is no longer allowed to carry cigarettes. Those that can sell cigarettes must have them hidden in these cabinets that are supposed to remain closed at all times, so you can no longer even look to decide what you want... so no price checking. If children are around they aren't even suppose to have it open. Casino's have recently had smoking banned. It's becoming insane.. personal freedoms are being stomped on, and all because of Cancer being today's new hotbutton....  |
Date: 7/5/2008 2:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 47932
let me begin by saying I smoke and as a smoker I hate smoking bans in public places, I hate the fact that I cant smoke at the ball game, or even in a bar in some places, but I understand it. I don't look at it as taking our rights. I see it as the fiscaly responcable thing to do. By making smoking less fassionable and offering less opertunity to smoke people will smoke less. By suppressing smoking they are saving Billions of dollars on medical expences and losses related to smoking illnesses. You would not argue that the government does not have the right to limit or porhibit Meth would you? It makes sence for the government to prohibit it becouse it is a dangerous drug. Smoking is less of a danger but still a dangerous drug. I dont see it as a government plot to take away our rights I see it as a way to cut waste, it is bad management to spend billions of dollars on medical expencies in medicade and medicare for people who develop cancer when it can be prevented by supressing the smoking  |
Date: 7/5/2008 2:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 48809
Pianoman, I agree with you that the ban on smoking is really more of a way to control us than anything else. I have thought this all along and they have their way of seeing to it that they get what they want by jacking up the cost of cigaretts , the terrific taxes on them and scaring everyone that smokes that they will get cancer... maybe they will and maybe they won't! I do not think that cigarettes are good for us either ... but neither are a lot of other things that we are subjected to! Do I smoke... no, I don't.... but I used too. Do I believe that the government is concerned about our health? lol. What a laugh. I think you had a good post Piano man!  |
Date: 7/5/2008 2:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 64497
While we're at it, let's ban food and alcohol too. People die of overeating and undereating all the time. People die from drinking related things (car accidents, health problems). The government does not have a right to dictate my life if they are going to be unfair about it. A lot of people do unhealthy things, the government should back off.  |
|
Date: 7/5/2008 5:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 26303
Yes drinking affects others. But you standing next to me having a drink, does not affect me at all. You standing next to me smoking does affect me. My nose instantly blocks and I have trouble breathing, and that is in open air! If this was to happen, I just walk away, but Murphy's Law will have it that the smoke will follow me. LOL. As far as the bottom line goes, hey, you have no idea how many people who don't smoke stay away from clubs etc. The same arguements were made here, but it hasn't affected the businesses at all. They all have designated smoking areas, so that non smokers are not affected. Businesses are doing just fine. Infact the local pub here says business has picked up. As I've previously said, I was a smoker when the bans came into affect here, and had some of the same objections. But now, I think I am being objective about the whole issue, now being a non smoker. Footnote: It's really irking me if I'm using the right affect/effect. Silly, and off subject, but someone please let me know, I can't stand it. lol |
Date: 7/6/2008 1:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
If you don't smoke stay away from it. Also I'd appreciate if all you non-smokers would also shower regularly, not wear cheap cologne, not belch and not pass gas in MY air.  |
|
Date: 7/15/2008 5:10:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 27414
Very good, all of you! This is a great debate and it's pleasurable to see everyone expressing opinions without personal attacks. We have a fairly new governor in this state and it seems that he's trying to make points by aligning himself with whatever popular opinion is being expressed at this time. Illinois did it so it's good for Iowa. And this right after he signed a new tax bill making it practically impossible to buy cigarettes. (For the ones that agree with it) But, like I said, what's going to happen when the new law affects something that YOU are doing? Agreed, second-hand smoke can be uncomfortable and/or hazardous to some. But the air in this town is filled with the exhausts of numerous factories that is, not only aromatic (in a bad way), but cannot be healthy. Thank you all for your thoughts. |
