# No smoking...



## Dog Moon (Apr 1, 2005)

So, a new law was passed today.  Rather, it was passed a few months ago and was instituted on Thursday.  There's no smoking in public places any more, likes bars and restaurants.  My friends and I were at a bar this evening and saw the mayor of Minneapolis with a party bus of people who apparently are going from bar to bar and smoking outside to protest against this new law.  It just seems weird that a law like this would be passed in the Hennepin County [I'm from Minnesota, btw] and the mayor of Minneapolis is doing something like that.  Of course, it is highly likely that after this one time, the mayor will forget about this and go on with his life.  Now, I'm not really much of a smoker, but this whole idea just seems contradictory and many people are complaining about this law infringing on the rights of people who smoke, though those people were all smokers.  Businesses have been purchasing little metal containers for people to put their cigarettes in, but they aren't in front of every business and plenty people are now putting their cigs out on the street instead of in an ash tray inside.

[I'm not drunk, btw.  I was just thinking about this and wanted to rant a little.  It's my first rant.  ]


----------



## reanjr (Apr 1, 2005)

Dog_Moon2003 said:
			
		

> Businesses have been purchasing little metal containers for people to put their cigarettes in




You mean ashtrays?

In Michigan, a bill was recently passed to make it non-smoking in public places or within 6 feet of a doorway (with the usual exclusion of restaurants, bars, smoke shops, and casinos).  The absurdity comes in when Detroit is excluded from the law.  Even worse, the bill almost went forward with a clause to make United Auto Worker facilities immune to the law as well.  This just doesn't strike me egalitarian.

Fortunately, the UAW thing went away, but we still can't smoke within 6 feet of a building.  A similar bill for Wayne County (Detroit's county) was killed in 1999 by resident lobbiest.  Unfortunately, no one was listening to him this time.


----------



## Dog Moon (Apr 1, 2005)

> Originally posted by *reanjr*
> You mean ashtrays?




Well, I meant the specific style.  The ashtrays with the roundish bottoms and the pole sticking up with a hole at the top, as opposed to any ashtray, though I guess I coulda said that...


----------



## jonesy (Apr 1, 2005)

Dog_Moon2003 said:
			
		

> There's no smoking in public places any more, likes bars and restaurants.



Been that way here for a while now. Our government seems to be trying make smokers extinct. Several corporations have started banning smoking at the workplace as well.

Sure am glad I don't smoke.


----------



## Ao the Overkitty (Apr 1, 2005)

New York has had such a law for a couple years now (or at least a year.  time is blending together).  I'm actually for it, but then again, I'm asthmatic.  Actually commented on how nice it was to not be hacking and coughing when I went to go see Enter the Haggis at a pub a week ago.  There have been protests from some bars, but the law has been relatively well received here.


----------



## Ranes (Apr 1, 2005)

jonesy said:
			
		

> Our government seems to be trying make smokers extinct.




Smokers are perfectly capable of doing that themselves.


----------



## IronWolf (Apr 1, 2005)

Columbus, OH just moved to a no-smoking in restaurants and bars (a few exceptions) and I think it is great.  It is really nice to be able to go somewhere and not go home smelling like smoke or worrying about sitting too close to the smoking section.  There are still a rather vocal group of people here who oppose it but I imagine that will fade with time.


----------



## Nightcloak (Apr 1, 2005)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> There are still a rather vocal group of people here who oppose it but I imagine that will fade with time.




This is true, those of us who believe in the supremacy of property rights are in the minority these days  

But I an happy for those who have health issues, that at least gives a silverlining to the whole thing


----------



## GlassJaw (Apr 1, 2005)

Being able to go to a bar or club and come out not smelling like smoke is awesome.

A lot of the cities in the Northeast are pasing similar laws.  Boston did so last year and Providence did so recently as well.


----------



## Mystery Man (Apr 1, 2005)

As an ex-smoker who sees the health problems due to smoking and being around smoke I'm glad to see something being done for the health of the community. I'm also fearful of what is around the corner, I don't like government regulating, or trying to regulate behavior. This law is having a tough time getting passed in my neck of the woods for this reason (among others).


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 1, 2005)

They passed the law in Brantford about a year ago as well.

I remember before the law, there were two Tim Horton's across the street from each other. One was smoking, one was non-smoking. The smoking one's gone, now.


----------



## Arnwyn (Apr 1, 2005)

It's been like that for a while where I'm from, as well.

And indeed, it is great.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 1, 2005)

On January 1, almost all restaurants here became totally non-smoking, even for those with a bar. I say 'almost' because there must be some exception that I'm unaware of; a few still have smoking at the bar but most don't. Both a locally owned place and two chains I frequent that have bars are also totally non-smoking.

We don't have a general 'all public places' smoking ban yet, but most are anyway and have been for some time.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 1, 2005)

It's moving that way in my neck of the woods, but it's meeting more determined opposition here.  There are places that people can go where there is no smoking, so those that do smoke want their hangouts left alone, which is all fine with me.  I don't like the idea of the government micro-managing our lives.  What's next?  A return to the days of prohibition?  I hope not.  

Kane


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> What's next?  A return to the days of prohibition?  I hope not.
> 
> Kane




Yeah, but there's a difference between banning smoking in public places, and a total ban on alcohol. Besides, it's not as if when you drink alcohol, it somehow works its way into another's bloodstream.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 1, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Yeah, but there's a difference between banning smoking in public places, and a total ban on alcohol. Besides, it's not as if when you drink alcohol, it somehow works its way into another's bloodstream.



 True, but who's ever heard of someone dying because they got hit by someone who had too much to smoke?  I'm not saying that smoking isn't a health hazard, but drunk driving is a much more serious problem, yet the government doesn't talk about banning booze (at least not yet).

Kane


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 1, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> True, but who's ever heard of someone dying because they got hit by someone who had too much to smoke?  I'm not saying that smoking isn't a health hazard, but drunk driving is a much more serious problem, yet the government doesn't talk about banning booze (at least not yet).
> 
> Kane




Yea, cause they know that doesn't work.  (i.e., prohibition) They already tried that.


----------



## Mr. Lobo (Apr 1, 2005)

*What's up in Maryland*

Here's a link to some info about anti-smoking legislation for Maryland. Ironically, the link is pro-smoking ban but I am emphatically anti-ban.

Smoke Free Maryland

I certainly don't know about the restaurant biz, but I favor the idea that any ban should come from the owners not the government.


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> True, but who's ever heard of someone dying because they got hit by someone who had too much to smoke?  I'm not saying that smoking isn't a health hazard, but drunk driving is a much more serious problem, yet the government doesn't talk about banning booze (at least not yet).
> 
> Kane




But smoking will ALWAYS lead to problems. Drinking is only if you've had too much, and not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 1, 2005)

Mr. Lobo said:
			
		

> Here's a link to some info about anti-smoking legislation for Maryland. Ironically, the link is pro-smoking ban but I am emphatically anti-ban.
> 
> Smoke Free Maryland
> 
> I certainly don't know about the restaurant biz, but I favor the idea that any ban should come from the owners not the government.



 I agree entirely.  If an owner wants to run a smoke-free establishment he should be able to and does without the government stepping in and making laws.  The government has too many more important things to worry about than smoking laws.  

Kane


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 1, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> But smoking will ALWAYS lead to problems. Drinking is only if you've had too much, and not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic.



 One of my relatives is 86 years old.  He's smoked his entire life and never once been to the hospital for anything other than a broken leg.  He rarely catches a cold, and is totally cancer free.  So, smoking doesn't ALWAYS lead to problems.  However, not all people that get into a wreck after having too much to drink are alcoholics, but people die just the same.

Let me clarify that I'm not pro-smoker.  I do smoke upon occasion, usually at a bar or with my friends on poker night, but I respect others' rights to not have to breathe in my smoke.  However, there appears to be a lot of people that complain about smoking right after they go into a bar they KNOW is going to be filled with smoke.  They KNOW that many of the people there are going to be smoking.  They KNOW there are other bars and places to go where smoking is not allowed, but they still go where it is seemingly just to stir up trouble.  As far as any establishment allowing smoking or not should be up to the owner NOT the government.  The government should be focusing on universal health care, the rising cost of living, alternative fuel legislation, and a myriad of other issues that truly deserve their attention, not something that can be handled by those that own businesses.  The more we let government control for us, the more freedoms we risk losing in the long run.

Kane


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> One of my relatives is 86 years old.  He's smoked his entire life and never once been to the hospital for anything other than a broken leg.  He rarely catches a cold, and is totally cancer free.  So, smoking doesn't ALWAYS lead to problems.  However, not all people that get into a wreck after having too much to drink are alcoholics, but people die just the same.
> 
> Let me clarify that I'm not pro-smoker.  I do smoke upon occasion, usually at a bar or with my friends on poker night, but I respect others' rights to not have to breathe in my smoke.  However, there appears to be a lot of people that complain about smoking right after they go into a bar they KNOW is going to be filled with smoke.  They KNOW that many of the people there are going to be smoking.  They KNOW there are other bars and places to go where smoking is not allowed, but they still go where it is seemingly just to stir up trouble.  As far as any establishment allowing smoking or not should be up to the owner NOT the government.  The government should be focusing on universal health care, the rising cost of living, alternative fuel legislation, and a myriad of other issues that truly deserve their attention, not something that can be handled by those that own businesses.  The more we let government control for us, the more freedoms we risk losing in the long run.
> 
> Kane




Although, if you DO check my location, you'll see that I'm in Canada, which HAS universal health care. So if the government wants to lower the chances for overloading the system with something that can be prevented, I'm all for it.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 1, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Although, if you DO check my location, you'll see that I'm in Canada, which HAS universal health care. So if the government wants to lower the chances for overloading the system with something that can be prevented, I'm all for it.



 That's all well and good.  I'm not from Canada, so that's why I brought it up.  However, you ignored the point of my post.  Government has better things to do with their time than managing the small deatils that we, the people, can do on our own.  

Smoking is a choice, so is going to places that allow it.

Kane


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> That's all well and good.  I'm not from Canada, so that's why I brought it up.  However, you ignored the point of my post.  Government has better things to do with their time than managing the small deatils that we, the people, can do on our own.
> 
> Smoking is a choice, so is going to places that allow it.
> 
> Kane




But what if EVERY place you go to has people smoking? Besides, this is a municipal law, and as such, Provincial and Federal governments have no jurisdiction. If people want to smoke at home and pollute their houses, that's their perrogative. However, I have a right to a smoke-free environment wherever I go.


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Apr 1, 2005)

Before this turns political,

I , personally, applaud areas than ban smoking.   Not from any sense of 'For the Greater Good' or 'Nasty Tobacco Companies', but smoking (even in many non-smoking areas of restaurants) causes a allergic reaction.  My sinuses drain.  A lot.  I mean an entire tissue box in under 20 minutes.  To much smoking means I have to leave.  Immediatly or blow snot over everything in sight.  I have had to leave restaurants (from the non-smoking section) due to a sudden influx of smokers overwhelming the place's ventalation system.  Nowdays I don't go to places unless it is completely smoke free.  From a individual (mine) standpoint non-smoking doesn't exist unless it is either completely smoke free or a really expensive, high powered ventalation system.  (I also suffer a similar reaction in really smoky areas, like some BBQ joints).

Thus, non-smoking doesn't mean, well non-smoking.  While I don't think the governemnt needs to ban smoking, they should ban SMOKE.  After all, it ain't the smoker I object to, its the poisonous fumes.  If a place want's to cleary state its smoking.  Fine, I won't ever go there.  If you want to say smoke free, fine I know what I'm getting.  You want to say non-smoking & smoking, get some testing equipment & prove you are able to keep the smoke IN the smoking section.  If you can't, either spend the cash to remodel, get a super ventalation system, or go either smoke-free or all smoke.

I don't find a problem with the law, so much as the interpretation.  I think, already legally, that if a restaurant claims this part of their restaurant is non-smoking, yet chemical test show enough smoke particultes to show otherwise, then what you got ain't non-smoking.

As a final note, don't start comparing tobacco to other stuff (alchol & pot being the 2 I see most often).  The differences are so many that it just fails on so many levels.  Porr arguments, really,


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 1, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> But what if EVERY place you go to has people smoking?




That's highly unlikely in this day and age.





			
				mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Besides, this is a municipal law, and as such, Provincial and Federal governments have no jurisdiction.




That's not the way it appears to be going here in the States.  State governments are buzzing about it a lot, and a few have passed bills.



			
				mojo1701 said:
			
		

> If people want to smoke at home and pollute their houses, that's their perrogative. However, I have a right to a smoke-free environment wherever I go.




And what about the smokers?  They have no rights to go out and have a smoke?  That doesn't sound like a very freedom-loving society there.  If you knowingly go out to bar that is filled with people that typically smoke like, for the sake of arguement, a small-town country bar, you being in the minority feel you have the right to make everyone else stop smoking?  That's just plain silly.  There are many, many places in most large cities that offer smoke-free environments for those that want it.  Don't ram your feelings down the throats of everyone else that goes to their little corners of the city to enjoy their disgusting habit.  It's their choice as much as it is yours.  It's called freedom of choice.

Kane


----------



## Mr. Lobo (Apr 1, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> But what if EVERY place you go to has people smoking? Besides, this is a municipal law, and as such, Provincial and Federal governments have no jurisdiction. If people want to smoke at home and pollute their houses, that's their perrogative. However, I have a right to a smoke-free environment wherever I go.




Wherever you go? Does that include the aforementioned houses that people are polluting with their smoking habits?

Obviously there is a difference between places of public services (like restaurants) and an individuals home. I would like to think that a restaurant should be more like the home of the owner. Who invites people in for dinner (or whatever) that is prepared for people who are willing to pay. I realize that the society I live in doesn't work this way and have to agree to disagree.

And here I will stop.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 1, 2005)

Vraille Darkfang said:
			
		

> Thus, non-smoking doesn't mean, well non-smoking.  While I don't think the governemnt needs to ban smoking, they should ban SMOKE.  After all, it ain't the smoker I object to, its the poisonous fumes.  If a place want's to cleary state its smoking.  Fine, I won't ever go there.  If you want to say smoke free, fine I know what I'm getting.  You want to say non-smoking & smoking, get some testing equipment & prove you are able to keep the smoke IN the smoking section.  If you can't, either spend the cash to remodel, get a super ventalation system, or go either smoke-free or all smoke.




*This* I agree with.  When I'm out to eat, I don't want to smell or taste smoke.  If I smell smoke and I'm in the non-smoking section, then it's pointless.  IMO, there should be standards that can be enforced for establishments that have both smoking and non-smoking areas.  That's fine.  I can live with that.  What I can't live with is a section of society whose only "crime" is that they enjoy a habit that is not popular with the mainstream being treated like pariahs.  That's simply wrong.  

Bars and restaurant owners have the right to restrict or outright ban smoking, as long as if they allow both, they can keep it seperate then great.  If not, they should be one or the other.  If a person doesn't like it, they can move on.  There are plenty of other places to go.  By no means does this have to be an all or nothing issue.  

Kane


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> That's highly unlikely in this day and age.




Ok, but that's not to say that I WANT to visit every establishment.



> That's not the way it appears to be going here in the States.  State governments are buzzing about it a lot, and a few have passed bills.




Ok, let's leave it at that. America will have its own legislation, as will Canada.



> And what about the smokers?  They have no rights to go out and have a smoke?




I'm not saying that, but if I don't want 100 cigarettes in a room, I don't want the first cigarette lit. I'm agreeing with Vraille Darkfang there, that a good ventilation, or a completely-sealed other room will be good.



> That doesn't sound like a very freedom-loving society there.  If you knowingly go out to bar that is filled with people that typically smoke like, for the sake of arguement, a small-town country bar, you being in the minority feel you have the right to make everyone else stop smoking?  That's just plain silly.




Like I said, don't start. It's not like all the smokers come in all at once. 



> There are many, many places in most large cities that offer smoke-free environments for those that want it.  Don't ram your feelings down the throats of everyone else that goes to their little corners of the city to enjoy their disgusting habit.  It's their choice as much as it is yours.  It's called freedom of choice.
> 
> Kane




What about my choice of not polluting my body? I'm not saying that they can't, say, smoke outside, but if it's inside with a poorly-ventilated room, I don't want that.

This is where I'm gonna leave this, since I don't want to start anything is, I know smokers. There's a lot in my residence, who go to the front doors for a smoke. Not always, but they're there. I don't mind it, since I don't stand there. And it's not like smokers need to smoke ALL the time. Can't they take a smoke before they go out, and then one after?


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 1, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> And what about the smokers?  They have no rights to go out and have a smoke?



IMHO, they have as much right as someone releasing sarin gas in a closed environment like subway, for every adult and children to breathe in.

If you want to smoke, go ahead and smoke your lungs out, but smoke near me and I consider that a serious threat to my life (by depriving me of oxygen and forcing me to inhale unfiltered, secondhand smoke). And don't tell me I should move. I have as much right to stand or sit where I'm at and not being suffocated by your deed. So whose right should yield?

Sorry about my passion. I have seen my uncle suffered from lung cancer due to his smoking. And though he died from it 20 years ago, that image and sound (of his rasping, congested heavy breathing struggling difficultly to get air) still stick in my mind. If you want to try and quit smoking? Spend one whole day with a lung cancer patient who have had been a smoker, and listen to the sounds he make.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 1, 2005)

Mojo, can you just go past the bar that allows smoking for the one that doesn't?  I don't see why EVERY place needs to be non-smoking.  

Just so you know, I don't get to smoke in my own house.  I go out to the breezeway.  I smoke outside the few times that I smoke at work.  I'm extremely careful about smoking around non-smokers, but when I go to my favorite bar, one that is frequented mostly by smokers, and has always allowed smoking I don't want to suddenly have to go outside to light up.  Everyone that goes to Tanner's knows what to expect when they go in, and if they don't know they find out as soon as they walk in.  If they don't like, they can take a hike.  There are a couple bars very close to Tanner's that have the same atmosphere and are smoke-free.  

Kane


----------



## Mr. Lobo (Apr 1, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> This is where I'm gonna leave this, since I don't want to start anything is, I know smokers. There's a lot in my residence, who go to the front doors for a smoke. Not always, but they're there. I don't mind it, since I don't stand there. And it's not like smokers need to smoke ALL the time. *Can't they take a smoke before they go out, and then one after?*




Emphasis mine.

I go out to smoke. Why? 

Because I don't want to pollute the inside of my house with smoke!!!   

Tooshay

edit - I ran my own stop sign. oops


----------



## Crothian (Apr 1, 2005)

Ya, we are having the smoking bans in Ohio to....and yet I can carry a concealed weapon to these places.  Personally, I like the smoking ban.


----------



## the Jester (Apr 1, 2005)

My town has no smoking within 20' of the entrance to a business unless you're moving 5 mph (fast walk).  

During some community events (Whole Earth Festival, Picnic Day) it's pretty much illegal to smoke downtown at all.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 1, 2005)

REG, I'm sorry for your loss, but it doesn't change the fact that if you go someplace, like a bar, that allows smoking that's your problem.  If we're outside or in a restaruant that has both smoking and non-smoking sections and my smoke bothers you, I'll gladly respect your distaste of smoking and put it out or move.  However, not every place has to bend to the will of the non-smokers.  

Kane


----------



## Mystery Man (Apr 1, 2005)

People who like the smoking ban have very valid reasons for wanting it. Tobacco is addictive and dangerous, and you must understand that these are the first steps to making tobacco illegal. While those who hate smokers will think this is a good thing they don't understand that this is how your freedoms are taken away. Little by little. A ban here, a prohibited sign there. Pretty soon you can't do anything anywhere, your freedoms are gone and you can't remember when the last time was you could do anything. What happens when certain DnD books or video games are banned? Eventually all books having anything in reference to withcraft or spells or anything deemed "dangerous" are watered down or even gone. I imagine having certain freedoms taken away that you love will hit you where you live and you'll be singing a different tune. 

All I'm sayin' is, be careful what you let them take away from you.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 1, 2005)

It's all a matter of compromise.  Smokers should respect the desires of non-smokers (sure, there will always be pricks, but those are few compared to the respectful many), but non-smokers shouldn't complain when they put themselves into places where they know they will face a ton of smoke.  With more and more bars and restaurants (about the only two places that allow smoking these days) becoing smoke-free it shouldn't be an issue to avoid the few places that do allow smoking.

Kane


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 1, 2005)

I'm just saying that if you're gonna smoke, please don't do it near me. I don't like the smell, I don't like the effects. I don't mind if, say, there's a group outside smoking, but if I'm in a restaurant or a bar that is virtually smoke-free, and someone lights up...


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 1, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> I'm just saying that if you're gonna smoke, please don't do it near me. I don't like the smell, I don't like the effects. I don't mind if, say, there's a group outside smoking, but if I'm in a restaurant or a bar that is virtually smoke-free, and someone lights up...



 That's fine.  I have no problem with not smoking in a bar that doesn't allow it or the clientelle doesn't smoke much.  All I'm saying is if someone walks into my favorite bar, that's always smoky, and gives me crap about having a smoke they can take a walk.  Opposite sides of the same coin.  It's all about being considerate.  

Kane


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Apr 1, 2005)

[RANT] What really pisses me off about the whole smoking issue is that all these big tobacco companies got sued for billions of dollars and not one damn dime of it went to help smokers quit. I read somewhere once that smoking is 5 times more addictive than crack. Even a crack addict can go somewhere for (probably free) help. The government keeps raising taxes on smokers and the smokers keep paying more because they are addicted - and of course the government knows this.
     All these "Truth" ads really make me want to slap someone... they are so hypocritical to me. All the money spent on airtime for those worthless blurbs could just as well have gone to research in helping break the addictive cycle of nicotine - or at the very least lower the price of nicotine substitutes like the patch. As it is now Nicoderm is $40 for 2 weeks... that is insane. IIRC the Nicoderm system is supposed to be like 12 weeks long.
     Anyway, I quit smoking two weeks ago this Sunday. Don't congratulate me, because I am using a patch (not Nicoderm, off-brand that's $10 cheaper) and to me saying I quit smoking is like an alcoholic saying he quit drinking - when now he justs injects the alcohol. I mean, I'm still getting nicotine everyday.[/RANT]

Sorry hadda get on the soapbox for a sec...


----------



## Dog Moon (Apr 1, 2005)

> Originally posted by *Lasher Dragon*
> Sorry hadda get on the soapbox for a sec...




Ain't nothing wrong with that.


Wow, I hadn't realized that there were places across the country with this law and it is probably slowly growing.  At least we're not alone, though it is certainly difficult changing everything so suddenly.  I know we'll get used to it, but the law has only been up for a single day now...


----------



## Mr. Lobo (Apr 1, 2005)

Dog_Moon2003 said:
			
		

> Ain't nothing wrong with that.
> 
> 
> Wow, I hadn't realized that there were places across the country with this law and it is probably slowly growing.  At least we're not alone, though it is certainly difficult changing everything so suddenly.  I know we'll get used to it, but the law has only been up for a single day now...




Yeah, according to the link about Maryland I provided we're only one vote away. 

The ducks are lining up.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 1, 2005)

The main city near where I live (Madison, WI) is going all non-smoking this summer and I'm pretty content with that. I too have asthma so I'd like to be able to go wherever I want without worrying about being in an enclosed space with 2nd-hand smoke triggering an attack. Personally, I don't really buy the argument that I could always choose to go somewhere else. Sure, I could, but why should I when my habits aren't the ones creating a toxic environment? The onus of behavior change should be on the people polluting the environment and not on the rest of us.

Besides, one of the primary justifications for the smoking bans is the health of the workers. While patrons have an easy time going from one place to another based on the environment, workers don't have as much luxury in that regard. And in times of high unemployment, they may feel more pressure to keep the job even if the environment wasn't healthy. That, I think, is a legit reason for government regulation.


----------



## fusangite (Apr 1, 2005)

John Train, in his Book of Remarkable Names records one young man who was named Nosmo King after the sign in the hospital where he was born.


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 2, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> John Train, in his Book of Remarkable Names records one young man who was named Nosmo King after the sign in the hospital where he was born.




I don't get it.



...






...



OH!


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 2, 2005)

Well, if that sort of thing happens in KC, I guess I'll deal with it.  I still hold that it's a choice to go wherever you want to go and you have to deal with the consequences of that.  I guess I'm in the minority.  Oh well, wouldn't be the first time.

Kane


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Apr 2, 2005)

Just as an aside....

I've been to the KC Boats a few times (stopped going because of all the smoke).  Every time I saw multiple people with an oxygen tank in one hand, cigarette in the other.

Twice I saw someone smoking through their Traceohtomy Hole.

Really want to kill gambling in MO, outlaw smoking in the Casinos.


----------



## Algolei (Apr 2, 2005)

Mmmm, smorking bans....


----------



## Nightcloak (Apr 2, 2005)

*Trying to keep things philosophic and not political...*



			
				mojo1701 said:
			
		

> But what if EVERY place you go to has people smoking?




Sound like a great opportunity to open a business.   
You'd make a mint for being the first person to think of opening a non-smoking business.




> However, I have a right to a smoke-free environment wherever I go.




The funny thing about rights is they are not supposed to supersede the rights of others. Otherwise, they are not rights at all. They are group privileges at that point. It may not seem bad if you are in the group currently receiving such privileges, but remember you may not be the privileged on the next issue.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 2, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> REG, I'm sorry for your loss, but it doesn't change the fact that if you go someplace, like a bar, that allows smoking that's your problem.  If we're outside or in a restaruant that has both smoking and non-smoking sections and my smoke bothers you, I'll gladly respect your distaste of smoking and put it out or move.  However, not every place has to bend to the will of the non-smokers.



True. You can smoke within your own private property where I am usually not welcome.


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 2, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> True. You can smoke within your own private property where I am usually not welcome.




My point exactly.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 2, 2005)

Nightcloak said:
			
		

> The funny thing about rights is they are not supposed to supersede the rights of others. Otherwise, they are not rights at all.



But doesn't smoking supersede my right to breathe free air, one of the essential things that keep me living? As I said, to deprive me of my free air by overwhelming it with your smoke is considered a threat to my life, especially when I'm not inhaling through a filter that is in those cigarettes. That is secondhand smoke.


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 2, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> But doesn't smoking supersede my right to breathe free air, one of the essential things that keep me living? As I said, to deprive me of my free air by overwhelming it with your smoke is considered a threat to my life, especially when I'm not inhaling through a filter that is in those cigarettes. That is secondhand smoke.




For example, if I kill a man, and I go to jail, then the right of a safe community supersedes my right of freedom.


----------



## Nightcloak (Apr 2, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> For example, if I kill a man, and I go to jail, then the right of a safe community supersedes my right of freedom.




Communities don't have rights, only individuals. 

If you kill a man, you have violated his rights in the ultimate fasion and under the law lose your rights as punishment. We'll, usually, courts are a funny thing indeed...


----------



## Nightcloak (Apr 2, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> But doesn't smoking supersede my right to breathe free air, one of the essential things that keep me living? As I said, to deprive me of my free air by overwhelming it with your smoke is considered a threat to my life, especially when I'm not inhaling through a filter that is in those cigarettes. That is secondhand smoke.




I agree 100% with you on everything but one crutial point to the debate. No one is forcing you to not breathe the air you want. If they were then I would be the first in line to say you're rights are violated and even go so far to say you could seek criminal or civil restitution.

But you do have a choice. You can choose how this issue is handled in your home or any other properties you own. Government land is "owned" by the public (in theory) and thus you can organize your fellow man to vote on how such property is used in the democratic process. 

But it's the property that is owned by others that I have the issue with. We enter someone elses property by choice. To tell them what to do with their property is no different than a smoker telling you that he can smoke in your house because it is his right. I would defend your right to exercise control over your property in the same fasion I'm defending the rights of others to do with their property as they see fit.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 3, 2005)

So, where does a business establishment that caters to customers that the owners and/or manager cannot discriminate fits in? Private property or public?


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 3, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> So, where does a business establishment that caters to customers that the owners and/or manager cannot discriminate fits in? Private property or public?



 The day is fast approaching where they will be forced to discriminate.  Granted, they will likely not have a say in how they decide what to do with their own business, which is extremely undemocratic, IMO.  Here in the KC area, many restaurants are becoming smoke free, and those that offer both options are doing a lot to keep the smoking areas seperate from the rest of the establishment.  Smoking is still allowed in most bars, but there are a few places that offer a smoke-free enviroment and I think that will grow in time, but most places like that will likely still allow smoking.  After all, they gain a lot of income from selling cigarettes at $5 + a pack to patrons.

Kane


----------



## Nightcloak (Apr 3, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> So, where does a business establishment that caters to customers that the owners and/or manager cannot discriminate fits in? Private property or public?




Now that is a great point. 

I'm not sure if I can address the point without crossing the line into the "politics-no-mans-land". Don't want to do that to the mods here, this discussion probably has them on edge already. I’m going to stay philosophic on ideas and then attempt a graceful bowing out before that happens.

The points I have been making are on how things "should" work under a system that respects individual rights and by extension - property rights. 

But as you pointed out. We currently have a lot of precedents in the system to take into consideration that work differently.

I won't address discrimination. I do not want to open _that_ can of worms. 

To address your excellent point in the best way I can, however, in the last 75 years various social issues have been addressed by society by making statutes that give the state the right to mitigate the property rights of owners. These are specific laws to rectify whatever society has determined to be a problem of its day. I think we can all safely agree that these issues were/are problems that do need to be considered.

That is the nature of this debate in general. How things do work (those with your point) vs. how things should work (those who share my point). On the road we are on, you are right. Under such a system, the anti-smoking laws do have a precedent and can (and most likely will) be universal law. I'm the guy on the side of the road waving a stop sign, telling anyone who will listen that the road we are on is going places we don't want to end up at. That we should look at that road and build a better one that addresses the important issues we want addressed without impeding peoples rights.

Thank you for the great dialog. No wonder I love this place


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 3, 2005)

Nightcloak said:
			
		

> That is the nature of this debate in general. How things do work (those with your point) vs. how things should work (those who share my point). On the road we are on, you are right. Under such a system, the anti-smoking laws do have a precedent and can (and most likely will) be universal law. I'm the guy on the side of the road waving a stop sign, telling anyone who will listen that the road we are on is going places we don't want to end up at. That we should look at that road and build a better one that addresses the important issues we want addressed without impeding peoples rights.




This states what I have been trying to get across as well (and failing miserably at).  There has to be a better way than handing so much power to those in charge.  

BTW, I am trying to quit.  It's rough.  While once I quit I'll want to go to more smoke-free establishments, but I would MUCH rather prefer that individual owners listen to their clinetelle to make the decision for themselves instead of being told what to do.

Excellent points, Nightcloak.

Kane


----------



## Nightcloak (Apr 3, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> This states what I have been trying to get across as well (and failing miserably at).  There has to be a better way than handing so much power to those in charge.
> 
> BTW, I am trying to quit.  It's rough.  While once I quit I'll want to go to more smoke-free establishments, but I would MUCH rather prefer that individual owners listen to their clinetelle to make the decision for themselves instead of being told what to do.
> 
> ...




Thank you. And good luck quiting!


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 3, 2005)

Nightcloak said:
			
		

> Thank you. And good luck quiting!



 Thanks.  Like I said, it's been rough.  I promised my fiance that I would be smoke-free by the time we're married (July 2006), so I have time, but I don't want to put it off.  After all, it is a nasty habit.

Kane


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Apr 3, 2005)

Hasn't happened [yet] here in Scottsdale, Arizona.   I do enjoy a good cigar, when it isn't allergy season!


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 4, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> This states what I have been trying to get across as well (and failing miserably at).  There has to be a better way than handing so much power to those in charge.



The problem is whoever is in charge become liable. If the restaurant owner puts up a No-Smoking sign, smokers believe it discriminate them, and will sue the restaurant owner for liability.

In the case of the government, smokers will sue for their right in order to repeal the law or local ordnance, even going so far as to say that such a law is unconstitutional.


----------



## jgbrowning (Apr 4, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Thanks.  Like I said, it's been rough.  I promised my fiance that I would be smoke-free by the time we're married (July 2006), so I have time, but I don't want to put it off.  After all, it is a nasty habit.
> 
> Kane




This may sound silly, but the way I quit was to stop buying them. I had a bit too much conscienciousness to forever bum from others. May not work for you, but sometimes focusing on "not buying" as opposed to "not smoking" is a metal gymnastic that works. Also it helped me when I realised that I couldn't rightly expect to walk into a restaurant and light up incense and claim that it was my right because I enjoyed the smell. It's an odd thought, but it worked for me.

Best of luck!

joe b.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 4, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> The problem is whoever is in charge become liable. If the restaurant owner puts up a No-Smoking sign, smokers believe it discriminate them, and will sue the restaurant owner for liability.
> 
> In the case of the government, smokers will sue for their right in order to repeal the law or local ordnance, even going so far as to say that such a law is unconstitutional.



 Zio's, an italian restaurant here in Independence, is a smoke-free establishment.  It has been such since the day they opened (to my knowledge).  They have a bar and an area that could be kept separate from the rest of the place should smoking be allowed, but they simply don't allow it.  No one raises a stink about it.  Ever.  

Now a place that allowed smoking (such as a full-blown bar) that decided not to allow it anymore may face problems, but the stigma of being a smoker these days is such that I honestly doubt that too many would press the issue.  I could be wrong, after all people sue over all sorts of things, but I doubt you'd see much of that.  After all, bars and restaurants are *private* property.  They are not public.  The owner can decide exactly how they want to run the property.  In the issue of smoking, there are enough side issues from smoke damage to worker health that would weigh greater than a smoker's right to indulge.  It's not like they are putting a sign up that only allows one race over another, for example.

Kane


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> This may sound silly, but the way I quit was to stop buying them. I had a bit too much conscienciousness to forever bum from others. May not work for you, but sometimes focusing on "not buying" as opposed to "not smoking" is a metal gymnastic that works. Also it helped me when I realised that I couldn't rightly expect to walk into a restaurant and light up incense and claim that it was my right because I enjoyed the smell. It's an odd thought, but it worked for me.
> 
> Best of luck!
> 
> joe b.




My biggest hurdle is the drive (1 hour and 10 minutes to work everyday).  I sing, eat breakfast, and try other little things to get through it without lighting up.  I just need something to occupy my time.  My mind begins to wander and then I'm lighting up or looking for a gas station to buy a pack (if the craving really hits me).  I used to smoke 4-5 + during the drive, but now I'm down to 1, maybe 2.  Plus, my job has become stressful with the possibility of the computer lab that I manage closing sometime between now and October.  My job is safe, but the 8 people underneath me are not.  There's a lot of bickering and complaining even though they knew the job wasn't going to last when they got hired on.  I got outside and smoke to get away from it all for a few minutes.  Not a good excuse, but that's what keeps me lighting up.  At home, I'm fine.  I have plenty of things from housework, to writing, to playing WoW that keeps me from smoking.  Hopefully all that will die down when the lab closes and I get transfered to a county office closer to home.  

Kane


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 4, 2005)

I've never understood the concept of "smoker's rights."  (And I'm not only an extremely bright guy, I'm also a lawyer.)  Why does someone have the "right" to force me to breathe air that is going to make me physically ill?  Or the "right" to force me to choose a different public establishment in order to avoid it?  How can anyone possibly argue that the "right" of someone to exhale toxins into the atmosphere outweighs the right not to be forced to breathe those toxins?

Smoking is analogous to carrying around an atomizer of your own urine and spraying it constantly into the air around you.  Sure, there are people who don't mind getting their own piss on themselves ... hell, there are even people who don't mind getting _others'_ piss on them.  As far as I'm concerned, their habits with regard to such are none of my business ... until they're doing it in public and I'm the one getting pissed on or risking piss in my food or clean laundry or whatever.  There are no such things as "pisser's rights," and there are no such things as "smoker's rights."  As I said, the two things are analogous ... although smoking might be slightly nastier.

Those of you making the naive argument for letting the "free market" sort things out -- "Hey, just start up your own non-smoking business" -- don't seem to have much understanding of the free market, unsurprisingly.  If you want to factor in the fact that non-smoker's subsidize the vastly higher health care costs of smokers, that's a good place to start.  You won't be anywhere near a grasp of the issues involved, but it might actually clear a couple of cobwebs.  (For extra credit, find a good economics or property textbook and look up "externalities.")

The responses I'm seeing here also demonstrate an immense lack of understanding of what "public accomodations" are, and how they differ from "private property."  It saddens me to see people advancing arguments that are exactly the same as the arguments used for decades to deny service to minorities: "It's my business, so why do I have to serve _them_?"

For those who don't seem to be aware, BTW, the vast majority, if not all, anti-smoking laws are passed for the protection of employees.

Here in California, there were cries and gnashing of teeth before smoking was banned in public accomodations.  "Bars and cardrooms will go out of business!"  Bars are still very much in business, needless to say, and the cardrooms business went _up_, even before the hold'em explosion.  Yet people continue to make the argument.  It must be one hell of an addiction.

Finally, and just out of curiosity: how do smokers not perceive how much they _stink_?  People make fun -- and sometimes rightfully so -- of the lack of hygiene of gamers and poker players (two hobbies in which I'm heavily involved), but as much as I dislike an advanced case of GenCon Reekitis, it's really not that bad compared to the persistent ashtray smell of a smoker.  Maybe they do know, and just don't care?


----------



## Mystery Man (Apr 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> This may sound silly, but the way I quit was to stop buying them.




This is really the best road to take to quitting forever. It's a tough road, and depending on your level of addiction the time you spend swimming in a sea of agony and fear varies, but it subsides.


----------



## Mystery Man (Apr 4, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> I've never understood the concept of "smoker's rights." (And I'm not only an extremely bright guy, I'm also a lawyer.) Why does someone have the "right" to force me to breathe air that is going to make me physically ill? Or the "right" to force me to choose a different public establishment in order to avoid it? How can anyone possibly argue that the "right" of someone to exhale toxins into the atmosphere outweighs the right not to be forced to breathe those toxins?
> 
> Smoking is analogous to carrying around an atomizer of your own urine and spraying it constantly into the air around you. Sure, there are people who don't mind getting their own piss on themselves ... hell, there are even people who don't mind getting _others'_ piss on them. As far as I'm concerned, their habits with regard to such are none of my business ... until they're doing it in public and I'm the one getting pissed on or risking piss in my food or clean laundry or whatever. There are no such things as "pisser's rights," and there are no such things as "smoker's rights." As I said, the two things are analogous ... although smoking might be slightly nastier.
> 
> ...




Ah California....


Mystery *still waiting for the "big one"* Man


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 5, 2005)

> Finally, and just out of curiosity: how do smokers not perceive how much they stink? People make fun -- and sometimes rightfully so -- of the lack of hygiene of gamers and poker players (two hobbies in which I'm heavily involved), but as much as I dislike an advanced case of GenCon Reekitis, it's really not that bad compared to the persistent ashtray smell of a smoker. Maybe they do know, and just don't care?




They're just that used to it and probably wonder why we non-smokers wrinkle our noses at them all the time. I can't stand that stale smell they exude. My sister, who smokes, borrowed a shirt of mine and I had to rewash it as it stunk of cigarette smoke. UGH! So far, I've not met the stinky GAMER. Now the stinky Star Trek fan..... met one of those.... ick!   But most of the people I've run into seem to either shower regularly or put on something to hide the smell without smelling like the perfume section of Dillards.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 5, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> This is really the best road to take to quitting forever. It's a tough road, and depending on your level of addiction the time you spend swimming in a sea of agony and fear varies, but it subsides.





Mom quit by having an old pack that'd gotten stale sitting on the top of the fridge. When she got the urge, she'd go to grab one, get a whiff and put it back. Finally she quit and bother she and her sister are trying to get MY sister and her fiance to quit.


----------



## Cheerful Coffin (Apr 5, 2005)

It's been in Florida for over two years now. 

It's a disgrace, it infringes on PEOPLE's rights. That's the problem with today's soceity, no-one wants to view others as PEOPLE, but as SMOKERS or VEGITABLES or ANIMALS or whatever, so because of some technichality thier rights are revoked and they are treated inhumanly.

Our judges are becoming more and more like D&D's "chaotic evil". No longer are they even lawful evil, they think they're above the law, IE: activist judges. 

So why should I care what my goverment says? Afterall, if a judge who is suppose to represent the pinnacle of respect and knowledge of our justice system won't take the time to respect the written law why should I? So i don't, screw them, i encourage people to smoke anywhere, i encourage kids to smoke, just to show the man he can't control us. 

I don't smoke, but i like knowing i have the freedom too..


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 5, 2005)

Cheerful Coffin said:
			
		

> I don't smoke, but i like knowing i have the freedom too..



Then by all means, embrace that freedom and take a puff.

I don't kill, but I would love knowing I would have such a freedom, too. But I guess I can't have total freedom. Something about violating one of them three inalienable rights.

BTW, is smoking a liberty or a pursuit of happiness (even though you may not be granted such happiness)?


----------



## Mystery Man (Apr 5, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I don't kill, but I would love knowing I would have such a freedom, too.




They should legalize murder so Ranger Reg can go kill all the smokers.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 5, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> They should legalize murder so Ranger Reg can go kill all the smokers.



 Easy now!  I'm quitting, so lay off the psycho-talk!

Kane


----------



## diaglo (Apr 5, 2005)

*Public Service Announcement*

sorry, but i work in public health:

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2002-148/2002-148pd.html
edit: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/PrenatalSmkbk/index.htm


----------



## Algolei (Apr 5, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> sorry, but i work in public health



No need to apologize, we can't _all_ be slackers.


----------



## Nisarg (Apr 6, 2005)

well, one of the reasons I fled to Uruguay, South America was as a "political exile". I'm probably ENWorld's most famous Pipe-smoker (in the sense that I've mentioned it a few times), and I found my pipe-smoking lumped in with cigarrettes in the Tobacco-Taliban's quest to eliminate property rights and personal freedoms on the basis of emotional hysteria and flimsy flawed  science.

Fortunately, here in Uruguay people are more civilized than that, and you can smoke anywhere you damn well please; with the exception of public buildings (ie. city hall).  
That and the low low price of pipe tobacco is just one of the many things that make Uruguay a paradise for me.

Nisarg


----------



## Nightcloak (Apr 6, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> They should legalize murder so Ranger Reg can go kill all the smokers.





Na. Not the smokers, they are not annoying enough to hunt down.

But I'd be happy to let Ranger Reg lose on those that are _really_ annoying. People that drive slow in the fast lane, parents who let their kids scream at the store or restaurant, that kind of thing.


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 6, 2005)

Nightcloak said:
			
		

> Na. Not the smokers, they are not annoying enough to hunt down.
> 
> But I'd be happy to let Ranger Reg lose on those that are _really_ annoying. People that drive slow in the fast lane, parents who let their kids scream at the store or restaurant, that kind of thing.




...Executives at FOX (and others) for all the reality shows and those at UPN/Paramount/Viacom who gave Enterprise the chop...


----------



## Mystery Man (Apr 6, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> ...Executives at FOX (and others) for all the reality shows and those at UPN/Paramount/Viacom who gave Enterprise the chop...




Sheesh, demonstrate extremism with same and people start to take you seriously!

No, I would not condone the murder of anyone joking or otherwise.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 6, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Easy now!  I'm quitting, so lay off the psycho-talk!
> 
> Kane




Then you'd be exempt.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 6, 2005)

Nightcloak said:
			
		

> Na. Not the smokers, they are not annoying enough to hunt down.
> 
> But I'd be happy to let Ranger Reg lose on those that are _really_ annoying. People that drive slow in the fast lane, parents who let their kids scream at the store or restaurant, that kind of thing.




HEAR, HEAR!!!! 
Or the one parent who let her brats run loose in the store and DARED give me a dirty look when I made a loud comment about what's with the zoo out there.......


----------



## Nightcloak (Apr 6, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> ...Executives at FOX (and others) for all the reality shows and those at UPN/Paramount/Viacom who gave Enterprise the chop...




Oh god. How did I forget the reality shows!

Some one hunt _me_ down and shoot me if The Simple Life gets another run.








I know I'm probably 6 months away from some necromancer quoting me on this! It will be worth it - I feel better now.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 6, 2005)

Nightcloak said:
			
		

> Oh god. How did I forget the reality shows!
> 
> Some one hunt _me_ down and shoot me if The Simple Life gets another run.
> 
> ...





Shall I go raid the armory now?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 6, 2005)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> well, one of the reasons I fled to Uruguay [...] you can smoke anywhere you damn well please; with the exception of public buildings (ie. city hall).
> That and the low low price of pipe tobacco is just one of the many things that make Uruguay a paradise for me.



My God, what a joyous day it would be if every smoker "fled to Uruguay."


Jeff


----------



## Algolei (Apr 6, 2005)

Nightcloak said:
			
		

> Some one hunt _me_ down and shoot me if The Simple Life gets another run.



I'd do you, then I'd do myself.  And I ain't just quoting MJ on that one.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Apr 6, 2005)

Okay, either this gets political or completely off topic.  We'll just let this rest.


----------

