second hand smoke

[Hot Mega]

If the thread were "is it ok to smoke in front of your children, or in a car full of people?" then I'm sure everyone would be like "no! thats child abuse!". But because we're talking about adults, and in a bar or restaurant scenario, it makes second hand smoke less detrimental.

It's about choices.

Of course it's different if you're exposing a child who effectively has no choice and is still developing. Child abuse is a bit strong but it does suggest the parent is too naive to understand the risks they're exposing their children to. Because they live with the smoker...again, that is much more of a risk than someone's chance encounter with someone else's cigarette fumes. A non smoking person has a far greater risk from inhaling the fumes of their own burnt cooking over their lifetime than someone else's cigs.:o

If I own a restaurant or bar I should be the one who decides if people are allowed to engage in the legal act of smoking there or not. Not the g'ment. If you know that it's a smoking establishment and you don't like smoking don't go there for work, food or drinks.

No one's endangering anyone else by having an establishment where smoking is allowed. If a person knows there's smoking there but just has to have that bacon wrap fillet mignon (for example:tongue, they're freely exposing themselves to what they believe is a hazard.

People don't automatically die just because they're in a war. Their chances of death may be increased but if war automatically equaled death, no one would return alive (ever). Almost the same goes for smoking, if automatically equaled cancer and death, 100 pct. of the people who smoke would develop cancer and die from it. I guess if we're playing semantics it would be a little inaccurate to then say cigs cause cancer if everyone who smokes doesn't get cancer. It seems people have different risk factors for all types of cancers and that's where the issue lies IMO.

Grown ups have the choice to not carpool with people who smoke, dine among them nor drink among them.

 

[SpexyAshleigh]

It's about choices.

Of course it's different if you're exposing a child who effectively has no choice and is still developing. Child abuse is a bit strong but it does suggest the parent is too naive to understand the risks they're exposing their children to. Because they live with the smoker...again, that is much more of a risk than someone's chance encounter with someone else's cigarette fumes. A non smoking person has a far greater risk from inhaling the fumes of their own burnt cooking over their lifetime than someone else's cigs.:o

If I own a restaurant or bar I should be the one who decides if people are allowed to engage in the legal act of smoking there or not. Not the g'ment. If you know that it's a smoking establishment and you don't like smoking don't go there for work, food or drinks.

No one's endangering anyone else by having an establishment where smoking is allowed. If a person knows there's smoking there but just has to have that bacon wrap fillet mignon (for example:tongue, they're freely exposing themselves to what they believe is a hazard.

People don't automatically die just because they're in a war. Their chances of it may be increase but if war automatically equaled death, no one would return alive (ever). Almost the same goes for smoking, if automatically equaled cancer and death 100 pct. of the people who smoke would develop cancer and die from it.

Grown ups have the choice to not carpool with people who smoke, dine among them nor drink among them.

well I guess thats the difference between your government and ours...our government isn't perfect but in this case its decided to make the decision that really is best for everyone involved. Health is the biggest gift we have and I'm thankful that the smoking ban exists here. And you know what? So is everyone else, even smokers. I can't even tell you how many people I know who have since quit smoking and they're thankful for that.

I do agree that restaurant owners should have the right to decide whats best for his business but with smoking, I don't feel that making people step outside is asking alot. I shouldn't, as a non smoker, have less rights than someone who smokes. I can't inhale second hand smoke otherwise I wind up in the hospital requiring oxygen...because of that, does that mean that I shouldn't have the right to go get a bacon sammich at my fav restaurant? See how that is unfair to those who can't or don't want to be exposed? Implementing a smoking ban still allows everyone to go to their favorite establishment, which gives everyone rights...smokers just need to step outside to smoke, just like they'd need to stop and use the washroom. I really don't see the problem with that.

Sorry, its just common sense. Smoking is a proven hazard, so removing it from places where people, children are spending time together seems like a no brainer. I'm sorry if you smokers have to inconvenience yourself for a few minutes to go shorten your life, but it'd be a huger inconvenience for non smokers to have to breathe in your filth.

 

[larss]

 

[Atar554]

Having severe allergies myself I suffer greatly when people smoke around me. Smokers bitch about having to go outside when it's cold to get their smoke on. While I have/had to worry about where I can go to be with friends for more than 5min before I'm sneezing and unable to speak.

(My allergies are at the point where If I sneeze once I'm typically unable to stifle them until 5 or 6 sneezes later...after that point I still greatly want to sneeze but usually can sit there unable to speak or do anything till they go away).

Provided of course I get out of the smoke.

I do find it odd/interesting that some of the most staunch anti-smokers I've seen were one time smokers themselves. I guess after quitting their tolerance became non existent and they can sniff it out better than I can; practically gagging anymore.

I think smoking should be legal in general as it is, but not indoors in a public building. Unless you instate a law that says I have to breath your exhaled smoke, that I can then take the food that I ordered chew it and place it in your mouth at my leisure.

 

[Hot Mega]

well I guess thats the difference between your government and ours...our government isn't perfect but in this case its decided to make the decision that really is best for everyone involved. Health is the biggest gift we have and I'm thankful that the smoking ban exists here.

What happens when they decide those lovable, sodium rich, fat and cholesterol packed little strips of oink we all enjoy so much are relatively unhealthy enough to ban? Point being, forking over to the g'ment a wholesale right to tell you what's good for you is never a good thing IMO.

I do agree that restaurant owners should have the right to decide whats best for his business but with smoking, I don't feel that making people step outside is asking alot. I shouldn't, as a non smoker, have less rights than someone who smokes. I can't inhale second hand smoke otherwise I wind up in the hospital requiring oxygen...because of that, does that mean that I shouldn't have the right to go get a bacon sammich at my fav restaurant? See how that is unfair to those who can't or don't want to be exposed? Implementing a smoking ban still allows everyone to go to their favorite establishment, which gives everyone rights...smokers just need to step outside to smoke, just like they'd need to stop and use the washroom. I really don't see the problem with that.

But who should get to decide what's asking too much of an establishment's patrons; you, the g'ment or the proprietor? I expect that the proprietor knows there will be people who may avoid their estab. based on whether there is or isn't or they can or cannot smoke. They then take a calculated risk in deciding what of the two atmospheres they are going to entertain. A person doesn't want to expose themselves to the relatively unhealthy enviro. of cig smoke for their sodium, fat and cholesterol packed bacon sammich...? They should send someone else in for them....:dunno:

In the end, what does it all matter anyway?

 

[SpexyAshleigh]

What happens when they decide those lovable, sodium rich, fat and cholesterol packed little strips of oink we all enjoy so much are relatively unhealthy enough to ban? Point being, forking over to the g'ment a wholesale right to tell you what's good for you is never a good thing IMO.

But who should get to decide what's asking too much of an establishment's patrons; you, the g'ment or the proprietor? I expect that the proprietor knows there will be people who may avoid their estab. based on whether there is or isn't or they can or cannot smoke. They then take a calculated risk in deciding what of the two atmospheres they are going to entertain. A person doesn't want to expose themselves to the relatively unhealthy enviro. of cig smoke for their sodium, fat and cholesterol packed bacon sammich...? They should send someone else in for them....:dunno:

In the end, what does it all matter anyway?

well first off, bad food will never be banned because it makes the government money. Especially in the US. Most of the food produced today is mass grown, chemical and hormone dripped, fatty ass food that the government has full control over. So your point about bacon being banned is useless because typically the worse food is for you, the more they're going to want to produce it. And another fyi - I don't even eat commercially grown animals or produce, so I'm not concerned with what I'm putting into my body. Like I said, I have respect for my body and how I treat it, therefore I think I deserve the right to go about my business without being exposed to chemicals. And thankfully I live in a country that agrees with me So enjoy your smoky bars and restaurants, and I'll enjoy breathing in clean air and getting to smell fucking awsome because I'm not reeking of cigs. :tongue:

 

[Hot Mega]

well first off, bad food will never be banned because it makes the government money. Especially in the US. Most of the food produced today is mass grown, chemical and hormone dripped, fatty ass food that the government has full control over. So your point about bacon being banned is useless because typically the worse food is for you, the more they're going to want to produce it. And another fyi - I don't even eat commercially grown animals or produce, so I'm not concerned with what I'm putting into my body. Like I said, I have respect for my body and how I treat it, therefore I think I deserve the right to go about my business without being exposed to chemicals. And thankfully I live in a country that agrees with me So enjoy your smoky bars and restaurants, and I'll enjoy breathing in clean air and getting to smell fucking awsome because I'm not reeking of cigs. :tongue:

Hey! I respect your body too :drool1:

Well, I think people ought to be able to go about their business doing what they legally have a right to do. I just don't think we should expect people to clear a path for us when we can simply go around (or someplace else).

I think the right of the proprietor to decide what he/she wants to accommodated is greater than my right to have his bacon sammich at their expense of me telling them how to run their business.:dunno:

You keep bringing up your right...but your right isn't the right being violated..it's the business owner's:2 cents:

Everyone should have the right to go where they and their activity are welcomed. Likewise, everyone ought to be able to exercise their right to avoid places that are not conducive to their enjoyment or health.

"I demand my bacon sammich. Therefore, you must remove all the smokers from your restaurant so that I can come in and get what I want."

That's not right. It may be good for the person expecting this concession when it happens but it's not the way the world should be IMO.

On that note...I think I'll have a smoked ham sammich. :tongue:

 

[SpexyAshleigh]

Hey! I respect your body too :drool1:

Well, I think people ought to be able to go about their business doing what they legally have a right to do. I just don't think we should expect people to clear a path for us when we can simply go around (or someplace else).

I think the right of the proprietor to decide what he/she wants to accommodated is greater than my right to have his bacon sammich at their expense of me telling them how to run their business.:dunno:

You keep bringing up your right...but your right isn't the right being violated..it's the business owner's:2 cents:

Everyone should have the right to go where they and their activity are welcomed. Likewise, everyone ought to be able to exercise their right to avoid places that are not conducive to their enjoyment or health.

"I demand my bacon sammich. Therefore, you must remove all the smokers from your restaurant so that I can come in and get what I want."

That's not right. It may be good for the person expecting this concession when it happens but it's not the way the world should be IMO.

On that note...I think I'll have a smoked ham sammich. :tongue:

I'm not asking to remove smokers from the restaurant, I'm asking them to just simply eat their meal in the restaurant and step outside if they feel the need to smoke during their meal. Thats totally fair and not stepping on anyones rights. They want to smoke while noshing on their nachos? Then eat nachos at home. Thats essentially what you're telling me to do, if I don't want to inhale smoke....so the best answer to the problem is to just ban smoking from restaurants so everyone can still come to eat, and no one has to stay home. Smokers can still eat and drink at their fav places, they just gotta step outside for a smoke break. Its no different than smoking being banned in places of employment...employees need to leave their workplace to have a cigarette break, how is implementing that during the dinner hour any worse?

 

[SpexyAshleigh]

This argument isn't going to go anywhere btw. You're going to keep insisting that you deserve the right to be a smoky Mcsmokerson and pollute the air of people around you and I'm going to insist that you, or business owners don't have the right to subject that kind of filth to fellow patrons so lets just agree to disagree shall we?

 

[Hot Mega]

This argument isn't going to go anywhere btw. You're going to keep insisting that you deserve the right to be a smoky Mcsmokerson and pollute the air of people around you and I'm going to insist that you, or business owners don't have the right to subject that kind of filth to fellow patrons so lets just agree to disagree shall we?

I don't smoke cigarettes so I wouldn't have a need to be accommodated (incidentally, cig smoke is annoying to me too) in this situation. Again, this is just one of these subjects where my point is simply an academic one based on what I feel is right even though I have no dog in the fight.

I smoke cigars but my enjoyment of them doesn't put in places where I would be smoking them around people who either don't smoke them or mind the smoke.

That said, we just see encroaching on other's rights differently. The person who's right should trump all is the business owner.

The smoker and the non-smoker should have the same 2 rights.

1. Walk into a place and if it allows or disallows something that cuts against their interests, make a u-turn.

2. Walk into a place and if it allows or disallows something that cuts against their interests, ask if accommodations can be made for them.

That is the real world to me where everyone's rights are upheld.

 

[magicspore]

You can do what you want in your own premises and set your own rules but any place that is public where you have no basis or power over selecting who would like in or not , everyone has/should have the same right as the other person and there should be no conditions or basis for discrimination when going to such places . I don't know whether second hand smoke is more detrimental than first hand smoke so on the contrary one shouldn't ignore a general a sense of well being which should prevail . The premise of any commercial establishment is service to the person with the capacity to pay and his right is supreme as any others even smoking. Bad luck if he chooses to smoke , you shouldn't have the right to enforce your beliefs of non-smoking environs on anyone anymore than the owner who cannot dictate rules in a public space.

 

[Nester6]

This argument isn't going to go anywhere btw. You're going to keep insisting that you deserve the right to be a smoky Mcsmokerson and pollute the air of people around you and I'm going to insist that you, or business owners don't have the right to subject that kind of filth to fellow patrons so lets just agree to disagree shall we?

I highly recommend the e cigarette. You choose the nicotine level. or none. After trying every method to quit, I haven't smoked a cigarette in 18 months after 25 years of smoking. With the e cigarette, you get the nicotine without the 4000 other cancer causing elements. They have saved my life. No more stink, second hand vapor is harmless no more cough stained teeth and fingers. For me, the e cigarette is a miracle!

 

[squallumz]

I highly recommend the e cigarette. You choose the nicotine level. or none. After trying every method to quit, I haven't smoked a cigarette in 18 months after 25 years of smoking. With the e cigarette, you get the nicotine without the 4000 other cancer causing elements. They have saved my life. No more stink, second hand vapor is harmless no more cough stained teeth and fingers. For me, the e cigarette is a miracle!

haha, my friend was selling those things and he got me a set of the blu cigs.

taste a little gaky but its pretty fun.

 

[larss]

Point being, forking over to the g'ment a wholesale right to tell you what's good for you is never a good thing IMO.

The point here, surely, is that the government should step in over things that are detrimental to people other than the user. In the case of smoking, they have not banned smoking, per se, just where you can do it. You are not allowed to smoke in enclosed public places where it will affect others.

I was a smoker for many years, and had no problem when the bans in pubs and restaurants was introduced here. I actually preferred smoking out in the open air rather than an enclosed area where the smoke would linger. Not so much fun in the cold and rain, but most proprietors include covers and outdoor heaters.

 

[Jon S.]

I have several statements that I would like to make on the issue....but instead, I will simply thank Larss and Ashleigh for being the voices of reason on the subject. Anything I have to offer on the subject would likely fall on deaf ears.

Have I ever smoked you may ask? Weed....yes when I was younger. Anything else....HELL NO!!!! Too damn smart! I had a heart attack (at 38) in October and I was told had I been a smoker and a drinker I likely would have died. Sooooo, remember lung cancer isn't the only evil that results from smoking!

 

[Hot Mega]

The point here, surely, is that the government should step in over things that are detrimental to people other than the user. In the case of smoking, they have not banned smoking, per se, just where you can do it. You are not allowed to smoke in enclosed public places where it will affect others.

I understand that is your understanding of this as well as many others. But the 'people other than the user' are free to protect themselves by not going where smokers are allowed.

The position you and others hold (wittingly or unwittingly) is that non-smokers have the right to be some place at the exclusion of others (or the legal activity of others). I disagree with that line of thinking.

I understand that maybe some Americans will look at this just fundamentally differently than say Canadians and/or British.

While the US has it's share of paternalistic laws, we at least have the historical framework from which to debate the right of the individual, certain expectations of freedoms and privacy in the US.

So from this, whereas I and maybe other Americans would look at this and instantly think the business owner should have the right to decide what legal activity his patrons engage in inside of his establishment. You and others look at it and instantly see this as your right to go to someone else's establishment and be free from legal activity the owner says from his business standpoint is ok.

I say no such right should exists when you, the patron already enjoy the right to go somewhere else and others have the right to start businesses that cater to your interests, lifestyles, etc. I mean (for example), if businesses sprouted up on their own to offer alternatively organic foods without the g'ment demanding all retailers carry them..why wouldn't businesses naturally sprout up to meet the demand of non smokers??

There are wayyyy more non smokers or people who don't want to be around smoking. So the market place should have seen people open establishments that cater specifically to non smokers. What I predict would have happened is since there are more people with an interest in non-smoking that the non-smoking establishments would have thrived and the smoking places would have either catered to only smokers, gone out of business or been forced to change their policy. Either way, the appropriate choices will have rested with the appropriate grown ups...not the g'ment.

 

[Supafly]

People are free to protect themselves by NOT going to places where people smoke? Are you serious?

So smokers basically can pick ANY place first, and boo-hoo, nonsmokers, you keep your asses outta here or poison yourself, too.

And, of course, the nonsmokers are paying the medical bills for the smokers, too, that's stupid.

Smokers should pay at least 25% more on their health bills.

Best and most agreeable solution:

Smokers, step out side if you want the random cigarette, or if you want to do heavy smoking, visit a cigar bar or a similar place :2 cents:

 

[Hot Mega]

People are free to protect themselves by NOT going to places where people smoke? Are you serious?

So smokers basically can pick ANY place first, and boo-hoo, nonsmokers, you keep your asses outta here or poison yourself, too.

No. Smokers aren't picking anything first. The establishment owner should be deciding what they want to cater to and from that the patron decides whether or not to patronize the establishment.

No one should have the inherent right to decide how a business owner regulates legal activity in his/her establishment...they've earned that right by risking their capital and time in the endeavor.:2 cents:

I get that some of you just won't see beyond this mythical belief that smokers ought to be clearing paths for you where ever you decide you want to go. But as long as they have the legal right to smoke, others should be engaging in the mature behavior of avoiding it.:dunno:

 

[Supafly]

No. Smokers aren't picking anything first. The establishment owner should be deciding what they want to cater to and from that the patron decides whether or not to patronize the establishment.

No one should have the inherent right to decide how a business owner regulates legal activity in his/her establishment...they've earned that right by risking their capital and time in the endeavor.:2 cents:

I get that some of you just won't see beyond this mythical belief that smokers ought to be clearing paths for you where ever you decide you want to go. But as long as they have the legal right to smoke, others should be engaging in the mature behavior of avoiding it.:dunno:

Wrong. If smokers get to decide if they smoke in a restaurant or bar, they DO get the first choice

 

[Hot Mega]

Wrong. If smokers get to decide if they smoke in a restaurant or bar, they DO get the first choice

When did it ever or will it ever become up to the smokers to decide (unless restaurant owners are the smokers you're talking about)? The restaurant owners (should) decide what legal activity they allow in their establishment.

It should be up to them, not the g'ment, smoker OR non-smoker.