I am not a smoker and will always choose a restaurant

[question everything]

that at least has a no-smoking section.

But I think that this is getting to be a witch hunt.

Yes, places of employment and public places should be smoke free; though I do think that smoker should be accommodated. Especially in places where the temp. can be below zero in the winter.

But I also think that private bars and restaurants should be allowed to choose how they want to run their business and for us to decide whether we want to visit them.

Yes, I know, there are the chefs and the servers who have to inhale the smoke. I would like to suggest, though, that it is easier for a food server to change job than, say, a Ph.D. in biology.

Why can't we just live and let live?

[karlrschneider]

1. Well, I -am- a smoker but I never smoke in a restaurant even if it's

allowed. I'm going there to eat...I can smoke at home or out in the parking lot.

[ComerPerro]

181. You, then, are very rare. I appreciate it

[Raster]

2. I am a former smoker. My S.O. is a smoker. Smoking causes cancer.

Fact and unalterable. Second hand smoking causes cancer. 90% of the country are non-smokers. Why, pray tell, should 90% risk cancer because the 10% who do smoke don't like the seating arrangements?

[question everything]

10. Where did you get it that 90% are non-smokers?

And unhealthy eating habits cause cancer, unprotected sex cause cancer, and AIDS, most teen drivers as well as drunk ones kill people but you don't see anyone suggesting that people not get their driver license until they are 20. And you don't see the bar tender taking the car keys from patrons. And you don't see food servers refusing to serve chocolate cake to obese people.

Please read what I wrote again. I am all for herding the smokers in special areas dedicated to smoking, which are well ventilated. But whether someone wants to die of lung cancer it his his/her choice.

[Raster]

22. I have no problem with smokers smoking. Smoke on! I don't want to have

to smell it or inhale it. Period.

As for eating unhealthy, unprotected sex, etc. Those are choice you make that affect ONLY YOU. Someone smoking in my vicinity removes the choice from me. I am exposed to their carcinogens.

And yes, you most certainly do see bartenders taking refusing to serve and taking keys away from inebriated patrons.

[Runcible Spoon]

25. last time I checked, unprotected sex took at least 2 people.

or have we evolved to asexual reproduction? Thank the stars, I was getting sick of taking BC pills :evilgrin:

[Raster]

27. No, not my point. Two persons having unprotected sex do not affect the

persons sitting next to them. Or do they?

[Runcible Spoon]

30. hmm, I thought the point was cracking down on destructive behavior...

that affects other people besides self, unprotected sex being one of those things. It's all about the free will to place yourself in potentially harmful situations. Smoking is one, sex is another.

[kiahzero]

41. No, that's not the point

Unprotected sex doesn't harm people who don't choose to engage in it, whereas secondhand smoke harms people who don't choose to engage in smoking.

[Runcible Spoon]

45. well, you can choose to move away from smokers, or politely ask

them to extinguish. As I said downthread, children are a separate case and deserve special protections. But really now, nobody is forcing smoke down your lungs, the ways noxious exhaust is forced down urban dwellers' every damn day.

[kiahzero]

50. "You can choose not to work in the unsafe chemical plant."

Yes, you can, but that doesn't mean that workers shouldn't be protected from hazardous materials.

[Runcible Spoon]

52. and as I said downthread,

let servers who smoke volunteer to work the smoking sections. Most of my old co-workers smoked and didn't mind working the smoking section. If the area is ventilated, it shouldn't be too hard. There's a line between protecting people and legislating freedoms. Needs to be balanced.

[kiahzero]

55. "Non-smoking sections" aren't enough.

I know people who've had to quit working in restaurants because the air quality was so poor, from smokers, that they literally could not breathe after a few hours a work. Any other chemical and it'd be illegal, but somehow because it's from smokers, it's acceptable. :eyes:

[Runcible Spoon]

56. well, I understand your concern...

but I hope you advocate for other, at higher risk employeers, like toll booth workers....I mean, how could you ever legislate enough to protect them from the hazards of their jobs? Of course, we could just all not drive...

[kiahzero]

59. Mandate Easy-Pass

Where that's not possible, close off the booths and filter the incoming air. Make the collection drawer have two doors, so that the operator isn't directly exposed to more than a small amount of the polluted air.

[Runcible Spoon]

62. well Easy Pass has been blamed for the loss of jobs, though....

I mean, I thought you were concerned for people being forced to leave their jobs :shrug:

[kiahzero]

64. I'm sure that some people lost their jobs because of other safety rules

That doesn't mean I don't think that those rules should have been implemented.

[Runcible Spoon]

68. ummm..no they lost their jobs because Easy Pass is cheaper

although there is some debate after 9/11 since it's always good to have human survelleince of transportation systems...but mostly in NY it was a budget thing...so why do you think the rules should be different for restaurants? I thought the concern was with balancing workplace safety with freedom of the consumer...driving/smoking, breathing cigarette smoke/breathing exhaust....

[Lindacooks]

107. Your logic is flawed. Cigarettes have only one purpose.

Cars, while they do emit harmful exhaust, provide a necessary function in our society. Cigarettes do not.

[question everything]

130. Non-procreative sex, fatty food, alcohol, extreme sport have only one

purpose. And many other activities - you name it. Are you going to mandate that we all do only things that are "useful?" And by whose definition?

There are many people whose livelihood is dependent on growing tobacco and its use.

When did liberals become the keepers of "acceptable behavior?"

What is the difference between freepers who are against birth control and against non-procreative sex (or so they say) and liberals who are against smoking?

[Raster]

147. I'm not against YOU smoking. YOU may smoke all you like. I don't smoke.

I don't want to be exposed to your cancer-causing second-hand smoke. When you smoke in a public place, you expose others to your carcinogens from your nicotine delivery devices. If I have non-procreative sex, eat fatty food, drink alcohol and participate in extreme sports, I threaten ONLY ME. If you smoke in my vicinity you threaten you AND ME. And you give me no choice; YOU DECIDE if I will be exposed to your carcinogens. Not me, you.

[ellenfl]

61. don't drive your car near me. i don't want to breathe your exhaust. eom

[Clark2008]

98. I hope your friends don't drive or sit in traffic then.

Because, if they do, then they're breathing some awful damn fumes.

:eyes:

[rman]

126. With prohibition of smoking a lot of restaurants and bars will close.

People will stay at home to drink and smoke with their smoking and drinking friends.

An alternative would be to encourage creation of smoke free restaurants and bars. But no, that would be government interference in the free market or somesuch.

...and of course for some unfathomable reason non-smokers prefer to hang out at places were smoking used to be allowed.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

164. People said that would happen in California too, but it didn't.

[kiahzero]

186. I've heard that line before

I lived in Delaware for four years. There was a smoking ban there. There was no mass closing of bars and restaurants. It was nice not to have to breathe carcinogens just to get a bite to eat.

[drm604]

44. But this isn't about self-destructive behavior,

this is about behavior that is destructive to others who aren't given a choice. Unprotected sex (other than rape) is a choice made by two people. Smoking is a choice made by one that is forced on others.

Yes, those others could simply stay home and not go out to public places but is that really fair? Should the smaller percentage of people with this behavior really be able to dictate to others "stay home or breathe my harmful smoke, those are your choices"? How about instead we tell smokers "stay home or refrain from smoking for the evening, those are your choices"?

[Runcible Spoon]

46. I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

the effects of walking past a smoker on the sidewalk on your health are miniscule. I hazard to guess that even sitting in a smoky bar once a week would harm you less than opening your window on the Jersey Turnpike. I said downthread I would like to see separate, walled off sections in restaurants if the owners wish to accommodate smoking. This is all much ado over very little, or else we would see scores and scores of lawsuits.

[kiahzero]

53. You're forgetting about the employees

Yes, walking past a smoker on the sidewalk has only a miniscule impact on one's health - in such a situation, I would certainly reverse my statement that driving a fuel-inefficient vehicle is less reprehensible than smoking. However, the issue at hand is smoking inside public accomodations.

[Runcible Spoon]

57. addressed elsewhere...

not gonna repeat myself

[drm604]

71. Maybe you don't buy it because it's not what I said.

Nice straw man. I said nothing about walking past a smoker on the sidewalk.

And I'm sorry but hazarding a guess does not carry the same weight as years of scientific studies.

As far as the supposed lack of lawsuits, try doing a Google search on "Second hand smoke lawsuits".

[Runcible Spoon]

72. hmm, any of em pan out?

not my field of expertise but you can understand it's time consuming responding to 3 different subthreads...

[drm604]

76. I don't know how many of them panned out

but your argument was that there is a lack of lawsuits, not that there is a lack of winning lawsuits. :evilgrin:

That said, there are winning lawsuits, including a class action brought by 4,000 flight attendants.

From here:

In 1997, a class-action lawsuit brought by flight attendants in Florida against Northwest Airlines for
exposure to second-hand smoke resulted in a $300 million settlement. The suit represented 4,000
flight attendants who were forced to breathe tobacco smoke on international flights. The flight
attendants also have the right to sue individually after this decision.
http://no-smoking.org/oct97/10-10-97-2.html

In 1998 in the United States, a teacher who was a non-smoker, successfully sued the board of
education because he contracted tonsillar cancer. He shared an office with a chain smoker for 26
years. The judge ruled that employers are required to provide safe working conditions.
New Jersey Law Journal, August 10, 1998 http://www.junkscience.com/news3/etswc.htm

In Australia in 2000, a woman successfully sued a restaurant for damages resulting from a two-
month-long attack of asthma, which resulted from second-hand smoke in the restaurant. She sued
for breach of contract, breach of duty of care in negligence, and occupiers liability. Magistrate
Michael Smith said the operators of Tien restaurant owed its patrons and staff a duty of care to
provide a safe environment.
http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/australia.htm

In 2000, a family sued Olympic Airways because a family member died from an asthma attack
brought on by second-hand smoke on a flight. The judge awarded the plaintiff $700,000 in damages.
http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/airline.htm

There are more on that page but we're only allowed to quote 4 paragraphs.

[Runcible Spoon]

78. OK fair enough but this is a tangent.

I've made my position clear multiple times and I guess I believe we can balance worker safetly with personal choice. Call me an optimist. Good evening, thanks for the polite exchange (no sarcasm)

[Runcible Spoon]

80. dupe/self delete

[Quantess]

101. What if people think it's gross and lose their appetite

because second hand smoke stinks?

[question everything]

131. No one objects to separate smoking rooms that are well ventilated

and are well separated from the non-smoking area.

Or, you can choose not to visit that restaurant. Let the market - yes - speak. If enough people will not visit restaurants where smoke is bothering them, the owner will get the message.

And, by the way, I lose my appetite when there are screaming children in the next table and all of us are in a smoke-free environment.

[Skidmore]

115. I have a daughter and a grandson who are both allergic

to cigarette smoke. In fact, my daughter nearly died from exposure to cigarette smoke some years back. It triggers a severe asthmatic reaction for her and her lungs start shutting down. When she was a child, we used to be pretty limited as to where we could go with her. Neither she or my grandson have much of a choice but to leave when someone lights up. For some, the health effects are not miniscule but life threatening.

[question everything]

132. I am sorry about them. Many have similar reaction to perfume

but you do not see anyone banning it.

Have any of them tried an asthma or allergy medication?

Many people are limited in their exposure to things in the environment and, really, it is up to them to be conscious about that.

[mikelgb]

123. i dunno

there could be slpashing, but I don't think they will be legalizing public sex anytime soon :evilfrown:

[Freedom_Aflaim]

145. If two people start having sex next to me

I'll proably change tables.

[rinsd]

172. Unprotected masturbation. Always use a condom with Rosy Palm.

[Clark2008]

96. Uh... not exactly.

If you have a child, your eating, reading (or lack, thereof), sexual habits and morays are ALL passed on and picked up by the child witnessing it.

Therefore, anything you do is subject to effecting others - impressionable others. Don't give me that bullshit.

I smoke, but I eat healthy and exercise. I read constantly, so my mind is exercised, too. My son picks up more of my eating and reading habits than my smoking habit.

[LynneSin]

143. I'm an unhealthy eater....

...if you sit beside me you will not be affected by my unhealthy eating habits.

If I was a smoker and you were sitting next to me you would.

Second-hand smoke is dangerous and smoking affects everyone around the smoker, not just the smoker.

BTW:

Our state is requiring more hours behind the wheels of the car as a student driver before getting your license and they also ticket people who might not be over legal limits but still test positive for alcohol in their system. And other states are doing the same

[question everything]

176. I was talking about special smoking area that are separated

and are well ventilated. No one here wants non-smokers to sit next to smokers.

Please read the original post again.

[OKNancy]

11. Actually smoking increases your risk for cancer

Not everyone who smokes gets cancer.

[Cronus Protagonist]

94. People who smoke have repressed issues with sucking

And if they have older brothers, and clockwise hair whorls, heck, that makes it almost a certainty.

[Clark2008]

99. Counterclockwise hair whorls!

Get your strawmen straight!

:rofl:

J/K :hi:

[Cronus Protagonist]

158. I was referring to pubic hair, which, as you know, goes the other way

:evilgrin:




Educate A Freeper - Flaunt Your Opinions!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Viva_La_Revolution]

18. 1 in 3 people worldwide is a smoker, 1 in 4 in the US

Current estimates are that over 1 billion people in the world smoke. (In other words, approximately one in three adults on the planet smokes.)

Following 20 years of declining smoking rates in the United States, the percentage of people who smoke has reached a steady plateau of about 25 percent.

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-2233.html

[Raster]

26. I stand corrected. 75% of the US population DOES NOT SMOKE.

Same point: why should 75% of the population have to be exposed to the 25%'s smoking carcinogens?

Don't get me wrong. Smoke all you like. I don't want to have to smell it or deal with it.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

34. all good

your facts just needed tweaking.

[kiahzero]

3. Why should smokers be accommodated?

They're pumping hazardous material into the air. Quite frankly, the adage "live and let live" has no place in a discussion where one's behaviors have a significant harmful impact on others.

Also, I'd like to know how the argument you offer (It's easy for a food server to change jobs) wouldn't then be applied to other unsafe or unpleasant working environments, such as a chemical plant with poor safety procedures or any working environment with a constant climate of sexual harassment?

[Runcible Spoon]

5. hope you track down every Hummer driver

and give them the same spiel. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I appreciate logical consistency.

[kiahzero]

9. I'm tracking down every smoker?

By the way, I also don't think we need to accomodate the people who prefer fuel-inefficient vehicles. Again, "live and let live" doesn't really apply when you're causing others significant harm. However, I see fuel-inefficient vehicles as less reprehensible than smoking. An individual smoking can cause others a significant amount of harm, but one individual driving a fuel-inefficient car creates an insignificant level of harm by itself; it's at the aggregate level that fuel-inefficient vehicles pose a significant threat.

[Runcible Spoon]

19. less reprehensible?

how so? the aggregate effects of fossil fuel combustion are potentially far deadlier than if everyone on the planet smoked 30 cigarettes a day for 50 years. They are both potentially fatal, but not everyone or even most people develop life threatening conditions from smoking, but if we continue polluting the environment, we won't even be around to have this discussion. You can place yourself away from smokers, it's not difficult. And yes, children are vulnerable and need a separate level of protection. But none of us can get away from bad air pollution if we live in urban centers.

[kiahzero]

39. I said individually.

The impact of one person driving a Hummer rather than a Civic on a daily basis is less harmful than one person chain smoking in a restaurant on a daily basis.

[Runcible Spoon]

43. what difference does "individually" make?

we can't break down the specific calculus, I know that, but my point is that there are far greater evils than second hand smoke. That doesn't mean we shouldn't address it, as evidenced by my original post, but there's a time and place for governmental intervention, and excuse me for not trusting the beneficence of the same politicians who are subsidized by Big Tobacco to enact legislation to protect people from smoking. Because that;s what this debate is, really, a big freakin' smokescreen in front of larger issues.

[democracyindanger]

13. Well, I give pretty much

every Hummer I see the finger. Does that count?

[Runcible Spoon]

20. it's a start :)

personally I prefer persuading my inebriated male friends to urinate on their tires. Wait, no I don't, do I? :evilgrin:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

12. engines pump far more carcinogens into the air

when are you going to stop driving so I don't have to breathe that shit in?

[kiahzero]

14. OK, I'll stop running my car inside restaurants

In return, smokers will stop smoking inside them.

Deal?

[Runcible Spoon]

21. OK I'll stop smoking outside if you stop driving outside. Deal?

nice how that works out

[dweller]

37. nom'd

:rofl:


dp

[Quantess]

88. Does anybody give a shit whether people smoke outdoors?

I don't.
Smoking indoors is offensive and obnoxious. I believe that's the issue.

[Lilith Velkor]

129. Yes, some do

They scream at you for lighting up a cig at the bus stop, because they are certain that a stray bit of tobacco smoke will give them lung cancer, unlike the perfectly safe fumes coming from the buses.

[tyedyeto]

153. Yes, they do

I belong to a private club whose membership voted there would be no smoking in the building. There is an outdoors patio with tables and chairs that was seldom used before the ban. Smokers now go out there to smoke. Recently a cover has been added, for the comfort of the smokers (this is AZ where the sun blazes for days on end). Now, non-smokers are going out there and ragging on those who are smoking outdoors. They never went out there before. The battle continues to rage even though the non-smokers won the vote about smoking within the building. It won't surprise me when someone brings a by-law change to the membership to ban smoking entirely on the property.

[foreverdem]

160. Yes

The non smokers who stand next to the ashtrays, and then bitch about the smokers who dared stand near them.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

24. I never have smoked in a restaurant

but I do have to walk on sidewalks next to poison spewing vehicles if I want to get anywhere. I can get a $200 dollar fine for lighting up at a bus stop... while said busses sit there idling and spewing...

This whole thing is just getting out of hand :(

[question everything]

16. Um... because it is addictive?

why do we accommodate heavy drinkers?

People come to bars to drink and to smoke.

I will have a hard time accepting complaint of sexual harassments from people who work in brothel, at Hooters or at the Playboy clubs (are there still any?)

But chemical plants or other places of employment are not built, dependent on, people smoking; do not cater to smokers.

[kiahzero]

36. Way to miss the point

First of all, it is just as illegal to sexually harass a waitress of Hooters as it would be to sexually harass a female CEO. A hostile workplace is a hostile workplace. Quid pro quo is quid pro quo. Your "difficulty" accepting such complaints says more about you than it does about Title VII.

Secondly, I wasn't saying that a chemical plant was "dependant" on smokers smoking. My point in referencing chemical plants is that, even if it might be easy enough for someone doing manual labor at a chemical plant to find a new job, it's still a legal necessity to create a safe working environment minimizing exposure to harmful chemicals. Similarly, employees of public accomodations like restaurants and bars should not be forced to be poisoned in order to report for work. I see legislation to ensure safer workplaces as one of the great victories of early Progressives, and I'm quite surprised to find myself arguing with someone over that very concept on a liberal website.

[Runcible Spoon]

51. OK-employees are a different matter/

I waited tables for 3 years and the vast majority of my co-workers smoked. I guarantee that if you allow walled off, ventilated smoking sections, then there would be servers willing to work in there. Now, the place where I worked served a lot of char-grilled meat, I have to wonder what inhaling all that grill smoke might have done to the cooks' lungs...grab your pitchforks folks! We're goin' after the grills!

[kiahzero]

66. Grill smoke is nothing like secondhand smoke from cigarettes.

Nice strawman, though.

[Runcible Spoon]

70. no, it;s a valid concern/

I've worked grill before, it's pretty noxious. Have any stats on chemical composition of meat smoke? I know they say eating the stuff can be carcinogenic, I can only imagine what it does to inhale it...I'll see if I can dig somethin up

[Runcible Spoon]

75. here's a link RE: grill smoke...

http://www.dfci.harvard.edu/abo/news/press/dana-farber-offers-tips-to-reduce-grilling-related-cancer-risks.asp
lots more on Google....

[Runcible Spoon]

82. ***chirp chirp chirp*******

[question everything]

54. Yes, safe work place is important

but there is a major difference between working in a chemical plant and a bar. Working with chemicals is hazardous. But working in a bar is not, unless people smoke there. If the ovens are unsafe, if the racks of bottles and glasses are on the brink of collapsing, if there are no smoke alarms and fire extinguishers then, yes, this bar is unsafe and should be cited.

As for Hooters - are you going to tell me that people go there to eat?

What about strip bars? Do people go there to listen to music?

And being harassed by an occasional customer is not like being harassed by a co-worker or a boss or a client who is there all the time.

[kiahzero]

58. OK, it seems like you're agreeing with me on smoking in bars

But working in a bar is not, unless people smoke there.

Exactly... if people are smoking in the bar, it becomes a hazardous workplace for employees.

As for Hooters - are you going to tell me that people go there to eat? What about strip bars? Do people go there to listen to music?

I missed the part of Title VII that said that it didn't apply to women working in Hooters or women who take their clothes of for a living. Could you point it out to me?

[question everything]

74. Such prim

OK, I'll spell it for you.

Women who use their bodies to titillate men should accept the consequence that they'd be ogled, and propositioned and... um.. don't men put money inside a stripper G-string, and thus groping them? (Sorry, never been in one).

I am curious - where did you stand on the Paula Jones Bill Clinton "misunderstanding?"

I have often wondered whether, when Clinton invited her to go to his hotel room, whether she thought they were going to read poetry together.

I am a feminist and feminism means that women have a choice of being single or married; of staying at home with kids or working outside the home - or both. Of being a nurse, a police officer, or CEO. But also a responsibility to live by the consequences of their choices and not feel victims at the slightest provocation.

Women should not be subjected to hostile work environment but if that work environment includes using their bodies as sexual objects... I am sorry. This is one of the consequences.

Prostitutes should not be raped or robed, but they should not complain about being propositioned and ogled and groped.

And, yes, a world where women have to use their bodies to make a living - as prostitutes, or as strippers, or as food servers in Hooters - is a world where women still have a long way to go.

[kiahzero]

183. "She was asking for it?"

How is the logic you just offered distinct from the notion that a woman can "ask for" rape by dressing or acting a certain way? Where exactly is the boundary where a woman ceases to have a right to her body?

[rman]

122. ...in such a way that it does not harm non-smokers - why not?

[rman]

124. Why aren't there many more non-smoking bars and restaurants,

if there's such a large demand for it?

We can only guess how many people stay home because they can't go to a smoke-free bar or restaurant. I hear it's like 3/4 of the US population.

Why hasn't entrepreneurial America jumped on this huge market opportunity a long time ago?

And why does anyone purport that the only viable solution is to have the Government ban smoking all together in bars and restaurants?

Suppose i detest the smell of fish; it makes me throw up. But i do want to be able to walk into any restaurant and not get sick because of the smell of fish. Just going to a restaurant that doesn't serve fish isn't good enough for me. How reasonable is that?

[question everything]

136. Excellent point. Thank you

It seems, though, that in more and more places all restaurants ARE smoke free but, as you say, they do this not to meet the market need but for fear of breaking the law.

Local TV loves to interview bar employees and customers who are so happy that the bar is now smoke free. But is this is such a great idea, why didn't the bar owner figured this one by himself?

Now, if I could only find restaurants that restrict screaming kids to certain areas :evilfrown:

[Radical Activist]

191. Why shouldn't I be able to charge smokers with assault?

Giving me an asthma attack and headache bothers me more than a punch to the face. They just don't get it.

[Runcible Spoon]

4. my stance is that if a restaurant or bar owner desires

to allowing smoking, the s/he should have the choice of creating walled-off sections to accommodate us. I am equally disturbed by the witchhunt aspect, I have coined the term "social leper colony" for those sad little groups all bunched under an umbrella to satisfy the craving. I don't know if it's laziness on my part, but I only enjoy smoking when I can be in a comfortable place to do it, but I understand the grip nicotine addiction has on people, and don't make moral judgments. IMNSHO, if governments would be as concerned with air pollution as they are with regulating lifestyle choices and/or addictions, then the air would be cleaner from both pollutants and self-righteousness.

edited for clarity.

[Cleita]

8. Yes, I agree with you and I'm a non-smoker.

When I was in college, our campus forbade smoking in any building except designated smoking lounges. Non-smokers didn't have to go there and smokers had a place to light up with other smokers without endangering anyone who didn't like second hand smoke.

It seems we could do this in office buildings and other public places. I don't permit smoking in my house because I don't like the smell and the yellow coating that builds up on the walls, however, my guests are free to smoke outside in my patio.

[question everything]

28. Thank you for an excellent POV

We know have employers who fire people who smoke AT HOME, yet, they do not fire the obese, or the ones who do not exercise, or the "playboy" (probably admire him).

Funny thing, I have recently received my "Blue" renewal notice, of course the rates went up. But they do have different rates for smokers and for non-smokers, as are insurance company. So instead of firing the smoker, why not increase his/her premium?

Or better yet, let's have universal insurance.

[Runcible Spoon]

38. agreed.

I think that people out on what is, let's face it, a moralistic crusade against behaviors which do not conform to their own lifestyle choices really have to stop and think about their priorities. I mean, most anti-smoking crusaders are well-meaning, but honestly I think to some degree politicians like to stir potent little hornet nests like public smoking to turn attention from other more serious matters, all the while racking up brownie points for appearing to care about their constituencies. I'm in Arkansas, and my health insurance SUCKS. My grad school has no fucking union, nor can we get one. I can get fired for ANYTHING, prolly even posting here if someone really wanted to go after me. I can't help to think that our wonderful Repukes here really could give a shit less about my wellbeing.

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. No smoking sections are sometimes a joke.

Try some of the restaurants in the south - they hang up a sign on a partition or folding divider and declare it a smoking or non-smoking area, all in essentially one big open room. Totally useless.

[question everything]

31. Obviously non-smoking areas should be in separate rooms with own

ventilation system.

But then, again, let the restaurant owners determine what kind of customers they want to attract. Unless this is the only one in town, if patrons will stop going to those restaurants where the non-smoking sections are a joke - they will get the message.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

166. This (voluntary non-smoking restaurants) is becoming more common in my

area. My town does not require restaurants to be nonsmoking but there are a number of places that are nonsmoking nonetheless, no doubt to attract the business of people like me and my wife, as well as protecting their workers.

[question everything]

177. Thank you! This is the best example of how we can achieve what we

want - a non-smoking environment - without government intervention and a witch hunt.

[Egalitariat]

7. A "No Smoking" Section inside a building is as effective

as a "No Peeing" section in a swimming pool. I try to stay away from both.

[Fleshdancer]

15. I'm a non-smoker....

and if I like the food, I'm eating there regardless. I also think this is slowly becoming a witch hunt...if you own your own restaurant or club, then at the very least you should be able to acquire a special smoking license. Smoking, after all, is still legal.

[sam sarrha]

17. that is a Republican attitude... Live and let Die... the minimum wage guy

who has to breath carcinogenic material.. All day or All Night, F*ck the slaves who aren't addicted to tobacco products..

the elected officials get big money from the Tobacco Corporations to keep a deadly work space availer to the poor.. they need to get the kill rate to over 500,000 people a year.. that is just 50,000 more.. and damn that is about the present death rate to side stream smoke..

no body has the right to expose others to dangerous proven carcinogenic materials, that kill nearly half a million people every year in the usa, under any conditions..

it should be illegal to smoke in front of children under the age of 18.. using the delivery devices and paraphernalia to get high on addictive agents should be restricted around children who may be enticed to use them by the addicts that use them

[question everything]

42. Remember prohibition?

You cannot change anyone's behavior by outlawing it. Don't need to go that far back, we have had the "war on drugs" that is not making any progress.

What about shoveling food in your face in front of children? Or getting drunk? Or be engaged in "road rage?" How about viewing pornographic material? Children are a lot more resilient that you are willing to give them credit.

What with the "nanny state?" No one wants a government body to tell him/her how to live, how to raise children, how to conduct oneself.

The trains ran on time during Mussolini regime, and crime rate was very low at dictatorial Soviet Union, Cuba and China.

People come to this country to escape from such "nanny state." Being able to do one's thing, being allowed to raise one's hand as long as it does not touch the other's nose is a cherish concept in this country.

It is too bad that some do not accept this.

[Runcible Spoon]

47. absolutely,

agree with everything you've written.

[sam sarrha]

77. if it weren't for tobacco we could have national insurance.. they consider

national insurance as subsidy to the tobacco industry.. it kills and costs so much the last few years for each smoker..

the problem is a lot bigger than you think, Hillery's insurance program was denied because of tobacco and alcohol costs to the system, it was said when tobacco problems were resolved it might happen, then all the law suites started, but the Bu$h judicial appointments have overturned nearly all the big decisions

i dont think it is prohibition, it is protecting children..

[Clark2008]

100. Bravo!

:applause:

My child isn't smoking, as I do... BUT, he is reading a lot - as I do. He eats healthy - as I do. He's polite - as I am (in person. I'm a bitch on this board. LOL) and he's just an all-around good kid (because I try to be).

He's gets a lot more good things from witnessing his mother than the couple of bad things I do.

[KyuzoGator]

23. Here in Florida, no smoking is allowed in restaurants...

...and when I travel to places that allow it, it seems like a foreign concept.

[sandnsea]

29. I can't smell it

I quit smoking a year ago. I've been in restaurants that have smoking on one half but otherwise open. I can't smell it. When I was a little kid and people smoked everywhere, I couldn't smell it either. Not unless someone was standing right next to me or I was in an enclosed room with 5 people smoking. Other than people with asthma or real allergies, I think the whole thing is a bunch of self-righteous rot. If the smoke isn't being ventilated out of a room, there's a whole bunch of other crap that isn't being ventilated out either. And they sure aren't ventilating car exhaust. Just a bunch of self-righteous hooey, that's all it is.

[Quantess]

89. That's because you only quit a year ago.

How nice for you that you "can't smell it", but I assure you that my nose thinks it's vile.
It may not be offensive to you, but it sure is offensive to me!

Self righteous: the arrogant smokers lighting up in an enclosed space.

[sandnsea]

110. "when I was a little kid" - I didn't smoke

and I didn't smell it then either and people smoked everywhere. It's funny to me, people are now taking their smelly dogs every damned place, their dogs with their bacteria and dander that just as many people are allergic to. Oh, but that's okay because they're cute little doggies. Why do I have to sleep in a motel room after a smelly damned dog was in it???

I do not even notice people who smoke anymore unless they're within 5 feet of me, the same as it was years ago when I didn't smoke. I will never believe this is a real issue.

[Quantess]

162. A little cigarette smoke far away doesn't bother me, either.

I have friends who smoke, and it usually doesn't get on my nerves, as long as there is fresh air too.

But, there are tons of places, especially in the urban parts of Portland, where people sit in a cloud of smoke. When we go to those smoky places, that's when I get irritated.

It's like, every smoker sees everyone else with a lit cigarette, and they just have to light one up. I'm not sure what the hell is going through their minds. Is it "That looks good I think I'll have one", or is it "Look everyone, I'm a cool smoker too", or what? All they really have to do for their nicotine is breathe the collective secondhand cloud.

[sandnsea]

163. Then don't go there

What in the hell is going through someone's mind when they go to a place that they know is going to irritate them. Geesh.

[Quantess]

167. Well I don't anymore!

I won't go see bands play in small venues, because those are too smoky. "Do I want to see your band play tomorrow night?...No, it's too damn smoky!"

It used to not bother me as much, when I spent more time around smokers and was able to ignore secondhand smoke.

I will be so happy when Oregon follows California and Washington, and bans smoking in restaurants. California and Washington also have banned smoking in bars, which I personally think goes too far.

[TheCowsCameHome]

169. Just because you can't smell it doesn't mean others don't.

[sandnsea]

173. Don't smell it, don't see it, don't notice it

I expected to, but I just don't. I live in a city that has no-smoking in bars, restaurants, all public buildings. I would think that would make me more inclined to notice smoke in restaurants with nothing but an imaginary line dividing the sections. But I just don't notice it. In some places in the midwest, people can still smoke anywhere. I haven't lived in a state like that in years. But even when I visit the midwest, I don't notice the smoking until I actually see someone with a cigarette in their hands. You could say I wasn't born with a keen sense of smell, but I'm not blind. Smoke generally gets filtered out, just like the other impurities in the air. If you can see smoke, you have more air problems than just the smoking. You'll still be breathing in gunk, you just won't know it because you can't see it. And many intersections have air quality worse than the smokiest bars. In fact, in many cities you'd be breathing cleaner air if you went inside a smoking building than to stay outside.

People who smoke are at higher risk for illness, along with people who do drugs, drink excessively, and eat excessively. But second hand smoke?? No more risk than driving your car to work every day. When the anti-smoking crowd launches a campaign to ban cars and monitor indoor air quality, maybe I'll take them serioiusly about truly caring about the health aspect of cigarette smoke. Until then, I'll believe it's the same kind of morality campaign that spurs banning violent video games and dirty magazines.

[RagAss]

32. I'm a Smoker...I agree with you...give me an area away from

the crowd and I'll smoke there... I don't smoke in my home because my family shouldn't have to breath in smoke. Simple enough. But let me say this before I go.

Two years ago my father died of lung cancer. He was a lifelong smoker and accepted his fate. His primary physician, a young man with a great devotion to his practice sat me down and spoke to me about my smoking and how it was never too late to kick it(I'm 44) and how he would be glad to do anything to help me beat the addiction. I politely thanked him and expressed my appreciation for the great care he gave my father, especially in his final days.

My father was 86 years old. Was his death a "smoking related death" ? Common sense says of course not. My father died of old age. I have very little doubt that he was a smoking death statistic as well as my neighbor who died last year(42 years old...a smoker.....5'7 325 lbs).....I'm not a smoking advocate. It's a stupid addiction like any other addiction and yes it may lead to cancer and heart disease....but the criteria for these statistics on smoking related deaths need to be made public...it's a tricky business. As for statistics on second hand smoke???? Everybody walking the face of the earth has been exposed to second hand smoke. How in the name of reason can a stat like that be arrived at???

I'm just sayin .... peace rags

[question everything]

63. I am sorry about your dad

but you are right. Mine was a heavy smoker - couple of packs a day - and he quit when he had couple of heart attacks at 50.. and he lived to be 90.

My mom was healthy all her life but her last 10 years she lived in fog of Alzheimer's. She died at 86.

So if people choose to live short but happy - their definition - life, this is their decision.

Eating processed food, a lot of fats and sugars, being sedentary cannot be good for you, either.

No, smoker should not puff in the face of others and I don't think anyone is doing so. But smoking in the open air does not add much pollution as all the other pollutants that are around.

Personally, I find noise pollution - loud music, incessant gabbing on cell phones - more damaging to my health than smoke.

[Deja Q]

33. Because smoking causes global warming, that's why.

:crazy:

[ItNerd4life]

127. LOL

I thought it was just Republicans and their hot air! Thanks for keeping us informed. LOL

[kaygore]

35. Because 2nd hand smoke is very dangerous

[Arugula Latte]

40. "Non-smoking" sections are a joke.

The smoke always drifts over.

Even when smokers smoke outside, you have to breathe in the wafting stench.

I understand how old people took up smoking when they were younger, but, for decades now, we've known that smoking is very dangerous. Why did people who are now in their forties, say, ever take up smoking? I just don't get why they think it's a good idea. Yeah, I know, they probably didn't think they'd become addicted. Lots of people are addicted to lots of things (alcohol, junk food, etc. etc.) Still ... smoking? Why start that one?

[Clark2008]

102. Because it keeps you from being fat.

Seriously. I don't quit because I don't want to gain weight.

I quit when I was pregnant, but I was supposed to get fat then.

Right now, my blood pressure is low. My heart rate is normal. I weigh a bit toward the top of what I should (obesity runs in my family, but I'm not - however, I easily could be).

So far, my health is fine.

If I quit? I'd be fat, my blood pressure would rise, my heart beat would slow... that simple. It's a choice between the lesser of two evils.

[Quantess]

104. Not quite.

Quitting smoking may cause you to gain weight, you have a point.
But starting smking doesn't make you lose weight.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

117. Same here

I'm a fairly light smoker as it is (about 5 cigs daily) but quitting is a guaranteed gain of 15lbs. Plus, it really pains me to say this, but my experience is that my social capital is higher as a slim woman who smokes than as a plump woman who doesn't. It sucks monkey ass but there you have it. This is the shitty and shallow world we live in.

[drm604]

48. "Why can't we just live and let live?"

Isn't that question more properly asked of the smokers? They're the ones causing people the dilemma of either staying home or going out and accepting the risk of other's smoke. I'd love to hang out at a club with friends but I don't like going home later with a headache from the smoke (not to mention the health risks). Why do they insist on forcing that choice on me? Why can't they just live and let live?

[question everything]

141. What you are describing is really rare

smokers are now the pariah of society. As mentioned above, only 25% of the population smoke (though I think that it is higher).

Smokers are the one pushed to the allies and to the corners outside - regardless of weather. Smokers are the ones who lose their jobs - even if they smoke on their own time away from work.

If you and your friends will visit only clubs that limit smokers to separate and ventilated rooms, the club owners will get the message.

As someone posted, above - if most people do not like smoking, detest second hand smoke, get sick of it - how come the market did not capitalize on it to offer smoke-free bars and restaurants?

Regardless of how many now still smoke, the percentage is a lot lower than what it used to be in the 60s, before the danger of smoking was publicized, before cigarettes stop being viewed as glamorous.

So I think that if we will continue with information and education we will continue to decrease the number of smokers. I'd rather follow this path of, yes, live and let live, then by coercion that never works. After all, we do use a similar logic when we want to keep abortion legal.

[izzie]

49. I see nothing wrong with smoking clubs

I just do not smoke in public places and around people. A club where no one care, set up for it, is fine. I frankly do not like people talking for ever on a phone in public pleases. You have to turn you mind off as their voices just go on and on. Bad canned music is better. Worst of all is the people who will say anything in public. What happened to trying some sort of thoughts for others? I do not wish to go back to any old days but some times people are a little raw in public now. It has always been out there but I think it is a little more so now.

[sinkingfeeling]

155. Unfortunately, where I'm at they are not allowed by law. Two years

ago, city passed a ban on smoking in restaurants, bowling alleys, and 'bars' that took in more than 50% of their income from food. Fine, it was voted on by the citizens and narrowly passed. Now, 2 years later, the city council has taken it upon themselves to 'revise' what the voters passed. As of next week, all bars will be non-smoking. They are being sued by a 'bar' owners association. This is a college town and many of the owners fear they will be out of business soon.

In the original ordinance voted on by the population, there was a clause that no smoking-only establishments could be permitted.

How's that for justice?

[Quantess]

188. The part that the citizens passed sounds great.

I would have voted for that. Banning smoking in bars that get more than 50% of income from drinks, though, is going too far, IMO. People don't go to bars with the expectation of clean, healthy living. The only misgiving is, the bartenders have to breathe in a lot of secondhand smoke while working. But it seems like the one appropriate indoor public place to smoke, would be a bar. If you drink enough, you can ignore the noxious fumes.

[ellenfl]

60. just another example of the marketplace

prevailing . . . oh, wait, this is government regulation.

ellen fl

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

65. I'm a smoker and I best not post on this thread.

It's a free Country!

:smoke: :party: :smoke:

[question everything]

178. Oh please, do

would love to hear from you.

This is not the first thread, of course, and not the last, where DUers are at each other for smoking, or not, or some like me who really do not smoke, do not like to be in a smoke filled room, but am alarmed at the continuing hunt of smokers.

I think that this is an attack on civil liberties just as nosing over library records is.

[NNN0LHI]

67. It is turning into a witch hunt

I smoke and prefer to go to restaurants with no smoking allowed. If I want to smoke I smoke. I don't smoke in my own or other peoples houses. If I want to eat I want to eat. Not be breathing some guys cigar smoke with my steak.

I don't like cats sitting up on the bar while I am eating either even though I have a big Tabby cat sitting in my lap as I type this. That happened a few weeks ago. Just thought I would throw that in.

Don

[Ksec]

69. booze is more destructive. ban booze too.

and while were at it ban fattening foods. And candy.

Thats why Im against these things. Its a slippery slope.

[sam sarrha]

79. alcohol is the 4th major health hazard but not as bad as tobacco.

it isn't a slippery slope, tobacco kills almost half a MILLION people a year.. nearly EVERY person starts smoking as a child.. if children were prevented from smoking it would disappear as a problem, because very very few people start smoking after 18 and the present users would die out sooner than later. like my father

[Ksec]

81. Booze kills millions. So does obesity .

Just because there are a few less deaths doesnt make it OK. It is a slippery slope.

[Raster]

93. There is nothing slippery about it. If I choose to overeat and fuck up my

health. It's my health, it harms no one else. If I choose to smoke and blow my second-hand smoke all over a non-smoker, I have just removed their right to choose to get cancer.

[sam sarrha]

120. half a million a year is not a few... 200 times the death rate in Iraq

yearly for our soldiers... the insiciouslly target children to smoke, over 90% of smokers started as teenagers..

[sam sarrha]

125. Obesity is a medical condition, much is caused by High fructose corn syrup

it causes the liver to make sugar into fat, reducing glucose causing low serotin which causes ravenous uncontrollable benging in people with a low level of an enzyme, the enzyme is what is hereditary. google; 'high fructose corn syrup obesity'

HFCS also effects the center of the brain that tells you you have eaten enough, the FDA released this stuff thru campaign contributions not research, the only rat study showed HFCS caused the testicles of adolescent rats not to mature and caused the hearts of female rats to continue to grow till they exploded. FDA approval is now limited to 4 month studies with a minimal number of subjects.. Srattera was approved with 20 individuals, only 5 really completed the study and only one had good results. in april there were 150 reported cases of suicidally in children.. most just quit taking the shit and dont report it, children 12 years old are killing themselves on it.

once a person is obese they can not lose the weight, nothing works, not weight watchers ..nothing.
i just attended a seminar on gastric lap band with my wife.. she has aa 600% chance of dying in the next 8 years or suffering a crippling health problem that will result in her being warehoused in a government care home where she will most likely die of neglect within 2 years.. and it is doubtful she can qualify for the $12,000 dollar surgery, because the rich need to get richer and people like you accuse the disabled of a vice.

obesity is caused by heridity, being poor and living on cheap carbohydrate, and food additives the F you up for coprorate profit

[Quantess]

90. Booze already is restricted in public places.

So, if you don't like being next to a drunk person, you don't have to. Don't go to bars.

Fattening foods and candy: The mere presence of fattening foods and candy is not offensive the same way cigarette smoke may be offensive. The candy vapors aren't forced into your mouth, are they?

[LincolnMcGrath]

73. This sentence speaks volumes about you as a person.

"I would like to suggest, though, that it is easier for a food server to change job than, say, a Ph.D. in biology."

[question everything]

179. Not a food server vs. a Ph.D, but a matter of geography

Take any geographical unit: a city, a town, a county, a "tri-state region" or simply a square mile, or miles.

Now, how many bars and restaurants will you have in this geographic units and how many biological laboratories? Or biological research institutes?

Perhaps I should have explained this better. I certainly did not mean to offend the food servers, only to point to a simple economic fact: if a food server does not like the place of work, it would be easier for him/her to find a job in another eatery without having to move to another state, or across the country.

If a Ph.D biologist will lose his/her job, or simply does not like it, this person will probably have to move across the country.

Again, it meant as a state of geography, not to offend food servers.

[Dem2theMax]

83. I just watched a dear friend die of lung cancer on Fathers Day.

It was such a wonderful gift for her husband of 30 years. Now every Father's Day he won't be celebrating. He'll be crying his eyes out.

Smoking is STUPID. Period. IT KILLS. I know my friend Marie would have done anything she could to have had many more years with her husband and her son and daughters. She would NEVER have picked up the deadly habit to begin with if she had had the fortune to see how her life was going to be cut short.

There is no excuse on the planet to expose anyone to smoke. It's not a witch hunt to want to be able to breath relatively clean air. It's called sanity.

[greyl]

113. Very sorry to hear that.

It's some damn difficult stuff to go through, isn't it?

:hug:

[spacelady]

84. I agree, I am a smoker and the more the anti-smoking laws get strict,

the more I FEEL LIKE GETTING RUDE. I have tried to be courteous, I do not dump butts in the street, but it is never enough, so now it is war I guess, is that what non smokers want? Because believe that there will be a backlash when push comes to shove and believe me, you will want smokers on your side when the big issues of personal freedom are threatened.

[Raster]

91. As I said, I'm a former smoker, and there is none more virtuous than the

reformed whore. That said, I don't care if people smoke. I just don't want to have to inhale it or wear it. And guess what? Smoke sticks to your hair, your clothes, even your skin. Most smokers can't smell it on them, but let me assure you, we that don't smoke can smell it.

There should be bars that allow smoking. If I choose not to go into a smoking bar, that is my option. However, not all bars should be smoking bars. Restaurants are a different matter. Parents bring their kids into restaurants. No kid should be forced to breathe second-hand smoke in any shape, form or fashion.

[struggle4progress]

85. I've smoked sometimes: BUT -- nobody should have to breath any smoke.

Not at all. None. Not even faint secondhand whiffs. I completely support laws against smoking in public building and public places.

How could a campaign against a major public health hazard be a "witchhunt"? Witches don't exist and never did: tobacco has always killed and always will.

[Raster]

92. Damned good points. Thank you.

[Yollam]

86. I prefer all non-smoking restaurants.

Food and tobacco smoke do not go well together, period, and smoke does not respect the velvet rope dividing the smoking and non-smoking sections. It was very nice in California knowing that any restaurant I went to would be smoke-free. In Japan, it's another story. It's like time-warping back to at least the early 70s where smoking is concerned. People, men especially, smoke everywhere, walking down crowded streets with their hot butts always posing a threat of burns. In restaurants, there is usually no non-smoking section. One restaurant, the Chinese chain "Ii-pin-shan" has a "non-smoking day" (?) Is it any surprise that "Ii-pin-shan" is owned by Japan Tobacco?

I don't think it is getting to be a witch hunt. I smoked from age 16 to age 22, with a relapse from age 30 to 32. It is a horrible habit, horribly addicting, and as society, I think the best way to handle it is to stigmatize it and reinforce the image of smoker=dirty loser. Seriously.

And WTF is with that comment about the food servers having a bunch of job options? So people with good jobs should breath clean air, but peons should just suck it up?

I do agree that bars with a membership system should be the exception and should be able to allow smoking, since the night life has traditionally been all about hedonism and letting go of inhibitions, etc. Not everybody goes to bars and nightclubs, but most people eat at restaurants. But maybe employees at smoking establishments should get extra "hazard pay" for working in a smoke-filled, stink-ass environment.

[laundry_queen]

108. I go out of my way to find non-smoking restaurants

Or at least I used to, before there was the smoking ban here in BC.
And when my kids were infants, before the ban, I didn't go out at all.
There is some evidence that chemicals from second hand smoke stay in your clothing. Even if I would have went to a smoking place without my baby, that smoke would still be in my clothes (hair too) when I got home. No way in hell was I snuggling my baby with that shit in my clothes. A tiny baby does not need to stick its face in chemical soup.
(And yes, I feel the same way about all chemicals/pollution not just 2nd hand smoke). So I stayed home. And I don't think that's very fair.

When I was a kid, my parents always used to request non-smoking, and if the non-smoking section was full, they were asked if they would be OK with smoking. My parents always said, NO WAY and then they'd either wait till a table in non-smoking came up, or they'd leave (even if us kids were crying because we wanted to eat at that one place). And they always let management know why too. I'm just so glad we don't have to do that anymore.

[Quantess]

87. Indoor smokers are annoying and obnoxious.

Trying to eat while breathing second hand smoke is just plain gross.

For even worse air, try going to a small nite club to see a band play. Last time I did that, I nearly choked. The place was packed, the air was practically opaque with cigarette smoke, yet it seemed like everyone had to have a lit cigarette, whether or not they were even taking puffs.
They didn't need to puff on their cigarettes!! All they had to do was breathe in the disgusting smoky air in the club!

That was the last time I have been out to see bands play. I have no desire to sit in an ashtray.

Smokers, please keep your stinky, noxious habit outdoors.

[Clark2008]

95. I still think pollution causes much more lung problems than

smoking.

I think smoking gets the lion's share of blame.

I'm not going to sit here and say it's good for you - it's not. BUT, it's not the most evil thing in the world, either.

Why don't we stop blaming smoking for all the cancers and actually start investigating the genes that start it and why, exactly, smoking triggers that gene? Wouldn't that be more helpful?

[Jigarotta]

97. I'm a smoker and have no probem not smoking

in restaurants or places that don't like it.

[Quantess]

103. That's great.

I know several smokers who don't want to smoke in restaurants, because they feel eating and smoking don't mix. (Coffee and smoking seem to mix, with many of them, though).
Most of the smokers I know don't smoke in their homes. They go on the porch or to the garage.

[Czolgosz]

105. If feel the same way about laws to make kitchen employees wash their hands

after they go to the bathroom.

Let's stop the witch hunting.

The fecal handed should be accommodated.

I agree that private bars and restaurants should be allowed to choose how they want to run their business and for us to decide whether we want to visit them.

Yes, I know, there are the chefs and the servers who have to work with other kitchen personnel who piss on their hands and then prepare your meal without first washing their hands. I would like to suggest, though, that it is easier for a food server to change job than, say, a Ph.D. in biology.

Why can't we just live and let live?

[Quantess]

106. My #1 problem with secondhand smoke

IT STINKS.

Secondhand smoke makes me stink, which really gets on my nerves. Especially if I just washed my hair, and have fresh clean clothes.
I come home from a smoky place, and I stink!

[laundry_queen]

109. A friend of mine

has a mother who smokes and when her mother watches the kids (and smokes outside while the kids are there) and washes some of the kids' clothes before they go home, even though she's smoked outside for those few days, my friend always has to rewash everything anyway, b/c it STILL reeks of smoke.

[kdpeters]

187. Amen to that!!

Let's drop the pretenses that it really is all about the health problems. The real issue is it stinks, it's nauseating, and it's an offensive invasion of my personal space that I wouldn't tolerate if someone was screaming in my face or putting his hands on me. No one has any right to impose himself on another person.

[Hekate]

111. Restaurant employees may not find it easy to switch jobs

Depends on the city.

My ex-husband was a bartender in Waikiki for 10 years. The big hotel where he worked had air-conditioning -- which meant they simply recycled the air in the building forever. When he came home from work at night his clothes reeked of smoke; every stitch had to go in the laundry. Although he was a former smoker, I now know he was probably getting the equivalent of a pack a day in secondhand smoke on the job.

It was a good union job, one you wouldn't want to just walk away from. Honolulu was not such a big city: in a tourism-dependent economy there was a lot of competition for such jobs. Some of the cocktail waitresses had been at my husband's hotel for 25 years -- also breathing clouds of secondhand smoke.

What I'm saying is, workers (whether PhDs or porters) often can't be all that choosy about employment situations. Bosses will only do what's convenient, profitable, and legally required. That's why labor laws are necessary in the first place.

I have a lot of sympathy for addicted smokers, especially since I am related to several. But they don't get to smoke in my house, and I really don't want to breathe their smoke in stores and restaurants either. I used to own ashtrays for my visitors, but gradually they started *asking* if it was okay and/or voluntarily going outside to light up. Somewhere along the way I lost the ashtrays. Smoking everywhere used to be socially acceptable -- now it's not, and there are also fewer smokers. I say, be kind to them, but not at the expense of the rest of us.

Hekate

[Violet_Crumble]

112. I'm a smoker and I'm pretty sure it's not legal to smoke in restaurants...

..at least here in this part of Australia. Y'know, it gets below zero here right now, and I've never smoked in my house, but the freezing weather doesn't stop me from having an early morning cuppa and a smoke outside. As for arguments that people working in the service industries can just change jobs if they don't want to inhale smoke, then why shouldn't the same go for office workers or aircraft crews and passengers who don't want to inhale smoke? If passive smoking wasn't a health risk, I'd probably have a different opinion on this, but while right now I'm doing harm to my health by continuing to smoke, I'm damned if I'm going to inflict that harm on other people, especially my child...

[adwon]

114. One simple reason

Neo-Puritans decide to legislate personal preference under the guide of 'health.' Once the 'health' arguments are expended, it all comes down to they don't like it. Essentially, they look for facts to fit their preconceived plans.

Is smoking bad? Sure. Is it the role of the state to legislate every possible harm? FUCK NO. It's a socialist fantasy to think that all the ills of the world can be cured by more legislation. Rather than play a pack of latter-day Cotton Mathers, perhaps the neo-Puritans should spend a little more time reflecting on the fact that their personal preferences are a poor basis for legislation.

One final thing. I see quite a bit of complaining that smokers 'blow their smoke all over me.' It may drift your way, but no smoker, unless he's a complete heathen, would ever blow smoke on you...without cause. Smokers tend to be unbelivably polite around nonsmokers when it comes to exhaling. To borrow from John Cusack in Grosse Point Blank, if a smoker actually blows smoke on you, chances are you did something to deserve it.

[Puglover]

116. Non smoker here

but I tend to agree with you. And I think your "neo-puritans" is spot on.

I about fainted the other day when someone ahead of me bought a carton of Marboros and the clerk said, "that'll be 55.00!

[Violet_Crumble]

119. Smoker here...

..who totally disagrees with just about everything in that post. I don't get what the big deal is with smokers who insist they have some inalienable right to smoke in any enclosed space other than their own home. Smoking outside's no big deal and is a great excuse to stand outside the office a couple of times a day and catch up on all the gossip with fellow smokers :)

[Violet_Crumble]

118. Hell yeah! They did the same with asbestos!

Who the hell are those Neo-Puritans to legislate every possible harm that comes from asbestos? If I want asbestos all through the guts of my home, who the hell are they to trot out the 'health' argument and tell me I can't?

And having said that, I must now rush off and apply for a job with James Hardie and help them in their quest to wiggle out of paying compensation to asbestos victims. It's not like James Hardie asked them to inhale those fibres or anything! ;)

[adwon]

159. Well

Way to compare a lifestyle choice with a building material. After all, they have so much in common. Especially when the primary victims of asbestos are those that manufactured it, not the general public. Wonderfully absurd.

The problem is fundamental motivations. No one would argue against asbestos on personal preference. That would be absurd. You might as well argue against the concrete used in a building as well. After all, you would be far more likely to ever see the concrete than the asbestos. People simply don't care enough about their insulation to build up true indignance.

Smoking is different. It is entirely rooted in personal preference. Going after it makes the same amount of sense as going after mayonnaise. After all, mayonnaise is bad for you (it's what, 70% fat?). Since I don't like mayonnaise, I don't want anyone eating it anyplace I might go. After all, the sight and smell of it literally turn my stomach. Further, I don't want those mayonnaise eaters running up my insurance premiums and sucking off the Medicare teat when they have heart attacks from eating that nasty shit. They knew it would clog their arteries and they were rude enough to do it in front of me. Maybe we should ban mayonnaise...but I can't say it's because I dislike it. Oh wait, it's BAD FOR YOU. You eat too much of it and you get heart disease. Yeah! Now I can get that nasty shit banned while also sounding enlightened. Terrific.

The above is essentially how I think the train of thought went for neo-Puritans, except I wonder if they ever realized their dislike is entirely rooted in preference. I didn't argue smoking was safe or good. I simply pointed out the underlying motivation. The desire to control behavior they dislike, but it's dressed up in moral terms. It's a cute play, but if you push a little, they end up revealing their true motivation.

[nashville_brook]

121. not a "socialist" fantasy

"socialism" has as many varieties as protestantism, but the fundamental thesis is an economic on -- not a "social" one per se.

a more appropriate similie is Stalinism.

but, i agree on your basic point, which is libertarian.

[adwon]

157. It's a mangled quotation

It's an old Thatcher quotation that always just tickled me. I knew I was misusing it, but the opportunity was just too good to resist.

[rman]

128. It looks more like a RW fantasy to think that all the ills of the world

can be cured by more legislation. If it were up to the reli fundies - and they are not socialist by any stretch of the imagination - the govt would even regulate sex.

It stands to reason that non-smokers don't want the discomfort and/or harm related to (2nd hand) smoking. But there are far more reasonable solutions than to ban smoking in restaurants and bars altogether.

[LynneSin]

133. But what if your place of employment is a restaurant?

I mean, you just said it yourself in your original post

Yes, places of employment and public places should be smoke free

I lost my job during the first Bush Recession when our environmental firm had to make cutbacks. Waiting tables & bartending was the one job where I could make decent money and the restaurant I worked at was a chain but at least it provided health insurance to boot.

So you just contradicted yourself because you said workers should have a smoke-free environment but you just eliminated an entire, massive workforce of people where you can make a decent working salary.

Thanks for the big FUCK YOU

THree years after waitressing my cough rivaled those of a heavy smoker yet I am an avid anti-smoker.

Smokers are not minorities - they are people who made a personal choice the negatively affect their bodies even though there was plenty of information out there that warned them of the dangers of smoking. And unlike other people with negative vices - their choice just so happens to affect everyone around them including those of us who have opted to heed the warnings and not smoke.

If it's too cold outside to smoke perhaps smokers should invest in nicotine gum or chewless tobacco. No one held a gun to their head when they were a kid and first decided to smoke. If anyone here is contemplating taking up the habit then this is the consequences you'll have to live with. There are real people who civil rights are violated everyday through something that was NOT their choice (ie skin, heritage, sexual preference) - these are the people we should fight for.

If you don't like the smoking laws and they will be getting stricter - then either quit or put up with it.

[dysfunctional press]

135. easy- if you don't like smoke, don't apply at a restaurant or bar.

that's kind of like somebody buying a house next to an airport, and then complaining about the noise.

[LynneSin]

137. So instead of making $15/hr I should make minimum wage

because at the time those were my options

Making $15 an hour meant that I could work less hours to be able to maintain the necessities in life PLUS be able to go back to school for computers.

Thanks for helping Wal-Mart find more employees. Next time think about it before you post a conservative attitude about something like finding decent jobs that pay well.

And edit note: Many of the people I worked with were in the same situation like me - in need of a job that made decent wages, some to support not just themselves but their families to boot. Heck, at one time I worked with three women who happened to be pregnant at the job and continued to wait tables as long as they could because the money was better (they were put in non-smoking sections but very little separated the two sections from each other)

[dysfunctional press]

144. there are PLENTY of people willing to do the job with the smoke...

i was one of them- i'm not a tobacco user, but it doesn't bother me to be around it, and it didn't bother me to wait tables around it either.

it should definitely be up to the individual business owner as to whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments.

generally speaking- if you want a higher paycheck, you have to be willing to make some sacrifices as well- you just have to decide for yourself which sacrifices are worth how much money.

[LynneSin]

146. Oh my - don't even get me started - now we're enabling discrimination

You have heard of worker's rights haven't you. Basically now you're saying it's ok to discriminate against people who have made choices to live healthier lifestyles.

You sure you're a liberal thinker because this line of thinking is exactly like a republican. Fuck the little people - you put up with poor working conditions or you suffer. Let's put more people on the fast track to minimum wage and the poverty level. Waiting tables helped me make my life a better place but my health suffered immensely from it. But back then I didn't have a choice, today, thanks to the legislature here in Delaware I do have that choice

[dysfunctional press]

149. discrimination... puh-lease.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

you just insulted every actual minority that has ever actually suffered from actual discrimination.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

what a fucking joke...

[LynneSin]

150. Well, that's exactly what smokers do themselves

And everyone deserves the right to a job. Workers rights (when not abused by the Bush administration and their supporters) hang right there in every place of employment that state that everyone should have the rights to work.

Get over yourself - it's just the nicotine talking.

[dysfunctional press]

154. "...it's just the nicotine talking"...you don't read so well, do you...?

i stated pretty clearly that i'm not a tobacco user.

and although everyone "deserves the right to a job", NOBODY "deserves the right"(?) to ANY and EVERY job.
btw- there's NO RULE that says that non-smokers can't work as wait people in restaurants that allow smoking- everyone is free to apply for any job they would feel comfortable doing....and when the labor pool for a particular profession is no longer big enough, employers are free to make changes to attract more people to the job.
last i heard- there's no dearth of people willing to wait tables, even in smoky restaurants.

[question everything]

180. Right now, it is the smokers who are being discriminated against

they lose the jobs even when they smoke at home, no while at work, not even at breaks. And since most states are "at will" they can legally fire them.

So now you have employers who claim that they have a right to dictate how people behave on their own time. Next they will fire anyone who filled a prescription for birth control pills (but not for Viagra, of course)..

Insurance companies do charge higher rates for smokers, so employers who provide health care can do the same.

[sandnsea]

174. What about charbroiler pollution?

How come nobody is telling restaurant workers ALL the causes of indoor air pollution?

http://aqmd.gov/news1/Archives/restrule.html

What about meat smoke?

"But last spring, Cass and his co-workers quantified 29 different sources of tiny organic particles in Los Angeles' air. In the April ES&T, they reported that meat smoke appears to account for more than one-fifth of these particles, substantially exceeding any other single source--including fireplaces, gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, dust raised during road paving, forest fires, organic chemical processing, metallurgical processing, jet aircraft and cigarettes."

http://www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:11135128

Ya think we're going to ban cooking meat in restaurants??? lol. no way. But we will ventilate it out, which is what we would have done with cigarette smoke if somebody hadn't decided to make it a moral issue to stamp out instead of a science issue to solve.

[Runcible Spoon]

182. I brought this up before in this thread.

surprise surprise nobody is going after chargrill smoke :eyes:

[sandnsea]

184. Meat smoke is worse

That first link in that post is about the smoke and pollutants from charbroil flames. The second one is about the fact that meat smoke itself carries harmful particulates and is actually contributes the most pollution to the air. They are trying to reduce the pollution, with ventilation, not bans.

And it really does piss me off that the same people who whine about smoke allergies will take their dog, that's been licking its ass and eating poop, into hotels and stores and restaurants and the rest of us are supposed to think nothing of it.

[Runcible Spoon]

185. LOL licking its ass and eating poop! classic...

yeah and I'm not calling for a ban on pets in places where the owners allow it, and I doubt you are either. I mean there are some people with deathly serious pet allergies, right? But I am concerned about double standards, and nanny states. If some people are so afraid of being harmed/offended they really shouldn't leave their homes...ever...

[deaniac21]

134. In the case of smoking a witch hunt is appropriate.

[LynneSin]

139. Witch Hunt for what - no one forces someone to take up smoking

If this thread was about skin-color, sexual-preference, hertiage or other things about people that are part of who were were from birth - I'd be crying foul left and right. But these are smokers, who sometime when they were in their teens (perhaps earlier, perhaps later) they CHOOSE to take up a habit and for most - a habit that had plenty of warnings about the side affects. I graduated in 1984 and even I had all the lectures back then about the ills of smoking.

This is a choice - why should the rest of the world be punished when we choose to not smoke?

[deaniac21]

152. Second hand smoke is not a choice.

[iconoclastNYC]

138. No smoking sections don't work.

It's about as stupid as having a no-Lawnmower section.

I have empathy for people who are addicted to nicotine and have to step outside to get thier fix.

But I am proud that my city and state took the leadership on this issue.

Now I can go out to any bar or restaurant and enjoy a healthy smoke-free environment.

Everybody is pleased with the system in NYC and NYS.

Asking nicotine junkies to go outside to smoke is not a major inconvience.

Smoker's exhaust does not belong trapped in doors, in my lungs, or stuck to my clothes.

[LynneSin]

140. Delaware is the same way

We had a hit but we've bounced back. Many bars & restaurants have outside decks with propane heaters to accomadate smokers.

[iconoclastNYC]

142. I'd be great if people could defend smoking indoors without....

Changing the subject to alcohol, unsafe sex, car exhaust, or chemical plants.

But I guess they have to because smoking indoors is inexcusable.

GO OUT SIDE AND GET YOUR FIX. Problem solved smokers. Get off the cross.

[LynneSin]

148. I know - it's nauseating

Alcohol: More states lowered the legal limit to 0.08 AND have enacted laws that can ticket you for driving with a level lower than that.

Unsafe Sex: Outside of Rape - it's two consenting adults

Car Exhaust & Chemical Plants - you do know it's the Bush Administration - we're trying to make a change here folks.

Smokers are not minorities - they are people who made poor health choices. Minorities to me are someone who had NO choice in who they are whether skin color, heritage or sexual preference - these are people who suffer real discriminations from no choice of their own. I once responded to a letter in my local paper who tried to compare his smoking crusade to that of Rosa Parks. I wrote back (and was published) and reminded him (and the readers) that Rosa Parks didn't decide at age 13-15 that she wanted to be a Black Woman - she was born that way.

[Bridget Burke]

151. Houston restaurants went non-smoking in September.

I haven't noticed massive numbers of them going out of business. Smoking is still allowed in bars--but I'm at the age where I prefer a couple of drinks & a bite to eat over NUMEROUS drinks.

I've also waitressed & know what it's like to go home stinking of smoke. A waiter in a neighborhood place told me about the upcoming ban--with a smile on his face. Of course, he didn't have a Ph.D.!

Why do those who complain about "The Nanny State" spend so much time crying & whining? Poor babies!

[toymachines]

156. I do agree with live and let live

But I smoke marijuana regularly, and it pisses me off that tobacco smokers can light up wherever they please, often times ruining the taste of food that I am eating, and harming my health. They are harming me, and yet I cannot light up a J to relax... I see no distinction between me ripping a bong in a bar and someone smoking a cigarrette. But I understand that people would not want me smoking my herb in the bar, so why should they be able to smoke tobacco? Tough call, but I think we need to listen to the employees at these establishments.

[anarch]

161. I am a smoker, and if I want to smoke I'll go to the bar

or if that's banned wherever I am, I'll go outside. Or I'll just wait and smoke later on. I dunno. Honestly all these restrictions don't bother me all that much, although I do feel like it should be up to the proprietors and/or customers, not just arbitrarily dictated. :shrug:

On the other hand, I don't smoke nearly as much as I used to (maybe 3 or 4 cigs a day, these days, sometimes less), and I don't go to restaurants, 'cause I don't have any money. Now that bothers me.

[Catherine Vincent]

165. I just wish they'd make the casino owners switch to non-smoking

Make the smokers go outside for a puff before entering the casino. :)

[MrSlayer]

168. I'm a smoker but in restaurants I don't care if it's disallowed.

If they have a smoking section I will sit in it but if there is a no-smoking policy I'll still eat there. I can go without a smoke for the duration of the meal. I just get pissed when they try to ban it in bars. Drinking and smoking go hand in hand.

[cushla_machree]

170. Wah wah smokers

But I also think that private bars and restaurants should be allowed to choose how they want to run their business and for us to decide whether we want to visit them.

But these 'private' bars and restaurants are OPEN to the public. P-U-B-L-I-C. Its not like a private club...like the local spanish american club down the block. If smoking is not allowed in public places, restuarants fit under that category.

If smokers could smoke without second hand smoke, smoke away! Someone sitting at bar drinking a whisky does contribute to liver disease for the person next to them. And why should everyones public health decline because someone has a drug addiction? Sorry, i am shedding no tears for the smokers who have to go outside the door in the open air and smoke. Your addiction, is your addiction. If you can't sit through a meal without your next fix, i could give two shits.

People are not allowed to pollute the public land (wel theoretically), therefore, its not right to pollute the air with ones cigarettes in an enclosed public place. Restaurants, i am sorry, are not 'private' places liekl homes.

[rman]

189. What if the bar plays music that i detest, but i still want to go

to that bar and not be bothered by music that i detest. It's a public place, so i have the right to go there without being bother by anything. They will have to change that music.

[Radical Activist]

192. Does bad music give you asthma attacks and cancer?

Your analogy is ridiculous.

[rman]

194. you could just not go to a place that gives you asthma attacks and cancer

[cushla_machree]

193. ummm

Ok, are we talking about a jukebox that gives off radiation that gives you cancer? Oh, its just music!

[DiverDave]

171. good for you.

next?

[AtomicKitten]

175. I live in California and this isn't an issue for me.

However, I will add that while some people poo-poo the notion of secondhand smoke exposure, I am a steroid-dependent asthmatic due to long-term secondhand exposure courtesy of my parents who were heavy smokers.

[Radical Activist]

190. Yes, why don't smokers just let me live?

Why do they have to assault me with an asthma attack and headache in a public place, thus taking my right to be in public away from me, just because their stupid enough to use an addictive drug that doesn't even give you a decent high. Yes, just live and let live, by not giving me cancer from second hand smoke. The smokers have been hunting others down for years. Until you create magic smoke that doesn't effect those around you, then keep it in your own house.