View Full Version : Smoking Laws
Roadhawg 04-27-2012, 08:09 AM I should be able to go out in public areas and not have to breathe in cigarette smoke. I don't understand why smokers have a hard time understanding this.
Aren't there smoke free places to eat or at least non smoking sections?
Martin 04-27-2012, 08:38 AM I should be able to go out in public areas and not have to breathe in cigarette smoke. I don't understand why smokers have a hard time understanding this.
let's say you and i are neighbors. let's say that i enjoy smoking on my back patio. let's say that you can smell the smoke when you're in your backyard... does your right to enjoy your property trump mine? -M
betts 04-27-2012, 08:51 AM let's say you and i are neighbors. let's say that i enjoy smoking on my back patio. let's say that you can smell the smoke when you're in your backyard... does your right to enjoy your property trump mine? -M
That's a good question. A similar one would be: My dogs love to chase each other around and bark. If they're doing it on my porch and you can hear it next door, does my right to enjoy their play trump you problem with the noise? It's true that smoke from a back patio likely doesn't impair air quality to the point that it is dangerous next door, even to an asthmatic or person with COPD, but it might impair their enjoyment of their back yard. Both are tricky questions without an easy answer. But, the answer for one applies to the other.
OKCisOK4me 04-27-2012, 01:25 PM I should be able to go out in public areas and not have to breathe in cigarette smoke. I don't understand why smokers have a hard time understanding this.
I should be able to go out in public areas and enjoy lighting up a smoke. I don't understand why non smokers have a hard time understanding this.
onthestrip 04-27-2012, 02:14 PM I should be able to go out in public areas and enjoy lighting up a smoke. I don't understand why non smokers have a hard time understanding this.
Oh I dont know, maybe because you taint and poison the air for others. Non smokers don't do this. Ridiculous to even try to compare the two.
progressiveboy 04-27-2012, 02:32 PM Oh I dont know, maybe because you taint and poison the air for others. Non smokers don't do this. Ridiculous to even try to compare the two. Agree! The attitudes of some smokers can be very selfish and self centered. It is all about their rights and only their opinions matter and supersede everyone else. Very sad.
progressiveboy 04-27-2012, 02:40 PM I see advertisements in the Daily Oklahoma on the "clean outdoor initiatives" and many cities in our regions such as Austin, Dallas, Kansas City and even Chicago have strict ordinances that ban smoking in restaurants and bars on a complete basis. When I went to New York City recently, they also have a complete ban on smoking in bars, restaurants. Oklahoma"s overall health is not good at all. High obesity rates, high smoker rates, heart disease etc. you would think that would put the fear in people to want to make changes in their lives and stop abusing their bodies and hurting others with their second hand smoke. But again, like any addiction it can develop a stronghold on people and it becomes almost impossible to stop bad habits. Oklahoma should step up to the plate and quite damaging it's reputation with it's bad habits.
betts 04-27-2012, 03:09 PM I think a primary cause of second-hand-smoking-related health issues is worrying too much about what causes second-hand-smoking-related health issues. I would suggest some sort of "mood-elevator"/"SomaBraveNewWorld-esque" prescription medication to counter these self-fullfilling psychosomatic ailments, but those lawyer vs. drug-company ads on TV regarding the side effects freak me out too much to do so.
I'm not sure it would be very easy to say that to the families of people who have died of lung cancer from second hand smoke. Off hand, I know of two. I also take care of the young victims of second hand smoke on a daily basis, and you the taxpayer pay for it every time an asthmatic, whose family cares more for their cigarettes than for the health of their children, has to endure IVs, nights in the hospital, sometimes days on the ventilator and even death. The cost is high, psychically and physically, as well.
OKCisOK4me 04-27-2012, 04:44 PM Oh I dont know, maybe because you taint and poison the air for others. Non smokers don't do this. Ridiculous to even try to compare the two.
Sarcasm...I switched the non smoker with smoker... sorry.
OKCisOK4me 04-27-2012, 04:47 PM Agree! The attitudes of some smokers can be very selfish and self centered. It is all about their rights and only their opinions matter and supersede everyone else. Very sad.
Yes, because non smokers (which I have been before) are so much more important than people who smoke. Why the elitist attitude?
wallbreaker 04-28-2012, 04:30 PM http://www.smoke-freerestaurants.com/Rest-OK-OKCarea.htm
Looks like plenty of places for non-smokers to eat and drink without cigarettes. So it seems the goal isn't to provide non-smokers places to go (cause they already exist) but to remove ANY places for smokers to go. In this thread I see people calling for banning both restaurant/bar smoking, and outdoor public area smoking, which would seem to ban smoking all together.
Quit trying to claim it's about workers rights, or about being at a bar. You hate smoking, and you want it outlawed completed. Admit that is your goal, and own it. Trying for it piece by piece is just a tactict. The concept of trying to outlaw something piece by piece doesn't work, and will cause a backlash.
I'm a non-smoker, but I support the idea of someone opening up a cigar/martini lounge. Now, if the sole pupose of the business is for folks to smoke cigars, then why should folks not be allowed to smoke. What about smoke shops themselves? By the definition used in this thread, they're also public places, so I guess people should be abl to expect to go into a smoke shop and not be exposed to smoke? If you can ban in bars and restaurants, then really you can ban there.
So either outlaw smoking completely or don't. If it's legal, then these piecemeal restrictions are unfair. If it's so dangerous, then outlaw it. Oh, but then we wouldn't be able to get that 4% of state revenue (just $180 Million or so, nothing big). We'll just cut that from education.
kevinpate 04-28-2012, 04:51 PM So ... the new battle cry of let smokers be might become:
Smoking .... it's for the children.
(take our ciggie tax and sthu already)
As a former smoker, who smoked in two long stints amounting to over half my life, I can only shake my head and laugh at the silliness of how that came across to me.
I'm not one of those rabid anti-smoker former smokers by any means, but yeah, like it or not, the workers do have some rights. And non-smokers have some rights. And yes, smokers have some rights as well. But, the smoker rights do not include carte blanc to puff and exhale anywhere they want.
I do think there ought to be some establishments that are smoker friendly, and if they can staff them and draw enough customers to be profitable, all power to them. I bear such places no ill will, and night even pop in a time or so myself. Likewise when I was a smoker, including back when no smoking here was rare, I either dinna visit such places or I only rarely visited such places.
But in truth if I am sitting on a bench at the canal or somewhere, even though it is a public bench, I no more want a smoker to park it next to me than a smoker would want me to be lactose intolerant and wondering if maybe I shouldn't have devoured a half gallon of ice cream.
But hey, it is a public place and having a tootie fruity stinky patootie that dumps a stink on the smoker ain't against the law. Like getting hit by smoke, it's just bad manners, that's all.
HewenttoJared 04-29-2012, 02:31 PM so you're all about taking the rights away from people just because you don't like smoke?
no, it's because they don't like cancer...
Questor 04-29-2012, 07:47 PM I wonder if the smokers would be as forgiving if I lived next to them and decided to build a huge ham radio antenna on my property that blasted out, into all directions, massive amounts of high-GHz electromagnetic radiation.
oneforone 05-03-2012, 07:38 AM The whole no smoking initiative has gotten way out of hand. I can understand the movement to encourage people not to smoke however, the effects of second hand smoke are blown out of proportion. Most of the people in my family are smokers (most of them chain smokers) and my lungs are healthy as any person who has never been around it accept in the company of strangers. My only complaint is the smell on my clothes when I come home after a family function. The good news is most are quitting because of the disease factors not because of any ban. When you lose you three people to emphysema in the family it sends a strong message to quit. Like everything else in life you decide on your own when to stop doing certain things. Busy body lectures have no effect on you. You just roll your eyes and walk away or tune the person out and nod your head as if you agree with them.
At some point you have to respect the fact that other people enjoy the things you don't. I hate rap music but, I don't scream turn it down when my neighbors blare it at 3 in the afternoon. I hate the smell of some restaurants however, I don't start crusades to ban them.
We have to stop this banning this and banning that nonsense. People will do whatever they want to do. If we fully embrace the idea that second hand smoke is nuisance what's next? Banning BBQ grills because vegans and vegetarians don't like the smell of fresh meat cooking. Banning the consumption of meat because seeing other people consume it may be offensive to others.
Where does it stop? Sometimes you just have to follow the advice good parents used to tell their children. Address the issue or ignore it/ or improvise, adapt, overcome.
You always have the option of politely asking someone to step downwind from you, stepping downwind from the person or just moving to another area.
I think all the information/over inflated information about smoking causes people to think they are comfortable when they in reality they are not effected. Kind of like when you find out someone near you has head lice or your dog has fleas. You start itching thinking they are all over you.
BoulderSooner 05-03-2012, 09:01 AM 2nd hand smoke kills people it is not "blown out of proportion"
BoulderSooner 05-03-2012, 10:45 AM workers rights should not go away
betts 05-03-2012, 03:03 PM The whole no smoking initiative has gotten way out of hand. I can understand the movement to encourage people not to smoke however, the effects of second hand smoke are blown out of proportion. Most of the people in my family are smokers (most of them chain smokers) and my lungs are healthy as any person who has never been around it accept in the company of strangers.
You're sure about that? Someone has taken a look? With a bronchoscope? You've had pulmonary function testing? You got an unconditional guarantee of good health for the forseeable future from your doctor? I don't know how old you are, but I'd probably hold off on absolutes for a few years.
When you lose you three people to emphysema in the family it sends a strong message to quit. Like everything else in life you decide on your own when to stop doing certain things. Busy body lectures have no effect on you. You just roll your eyes and walk away or tune the person out and nod your head as if you agree with them.
I don't think we're talking about lectures. I believe we are discussing legally limiting where smokers can smoke around nonsmokers.
At some point you have to respect the fact that other people enjoy the things you don't. I hate rap music but, I don't scream turn it down when my neighbors blare it at 3 in the afternoon. I hate the smell of some restaurants however, I don't start crusades to ban them.
Actually, if someone is blaring rap music at a decibel level that will injure your hearing, it is your business and has nothing to do with what they enjoy. We're not discussing likes and dislikes. We're discussing health.
We have to stop this banning this and banning that nonsense. People will do whatever they want to do. If we fully embrace the idea that second hand smoke is nuisance what's next? Banning BBQ grills because vegans and vegetarians don't like the smell of fresh meat cooking. Banning the consumption of meat because seeing other people consume it may be offensive to others.
Where does it stop? Sometimes you just have to follow the advice good parents used to tell their children. Address the issue or ignore it/ or improvise, adapt, overcome.
You always have the option of politely asking someone to step downwind from you, stepping downwind from the person or just moving to another area.
I think all the information/over inflated information about smoking causes people to think they are comfortable when they in reality they are not effected. Kind of like when you find out someone near you has head lice or your dog has fleas. You start itching thinking they are all over you.
And don't get me started on parents who expose their children to cigarette smoke. Children are usually ignored when they politely ask their parents to step downwind or quit. Born and unborn babies don't have a chance to ask their parents to stop smoking. One could argue that it is child abuse. I'm sure that will get people riled up, but, if your baby dies of SIDS because you smoked while pregnant, is that really much different than a baby who dies because his or her mother took drugs while pregnant?
A little food for thought:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44318/
OKCisOK4me 05-03-2012, 03:14 PM I wonder if the smokers would be as forgiving if I lived next to them and decided to build a huge ham radio antenna on my property that blasted out, into all directions, massive amounts of high-GHz electromagnetic radiation.
You'd be affecting yourself too so whatever. People that live below power lines can't do anything about it.
Bunty 05-04-2012, 01:33 PM I should be able to go out in public areas and enjoy lighting up a smoke. I don't understand why non smokers have a hard time understanding this.
All of my relatives on both sides of the family who made it past age 80 did not smoke. I don't smoke. When you think in order to have a more enjoyable life means doing something that can shorten your life, don't expect everyone else nearby to join in on your enthusiasm.
All of my relatives on both sides of the family who made it past age 80 did not smoke. I don't smoke. When you think in order to have a more enjoyable life means doing something that can shorten your life, don't expect everyone else nearby to join in on your enthusiasm.
LOL, true.
HewenttoJared 05-06-2012, 04:45 PM The whole no smoking initiative has gotten way out of hand. I can understand the movement to encourage people not to smoke however, the effects of second hand smoke are blown out of proportion. Most of the people in my family are smokers (most of them chain smokers) and my lungs are healthy as any person who has never been around it accept in the company of strangers. My only complaint is the smell on my clothes when I come home after a family function. The good news is most are quitting because of the disease factors not because of any ban. When you lose you three people to emphysema in the family it sends a strong message to quit. Like everything else in life you decide on your own when to stop doing certain things. Busy body lectures have no effect on you. You just roll your eyes and walk away or tune the person out and nod your head as if you agree with them.
At some point you have to respect the fact that other people enjoy the things you don't. I hate rap music but, I don't scream turn it down when my neighbors blare it at 3 in the afternoon. I hate the smell of some restaurants however, I don't start crusades to ban them.
We have to stop this banning this and banning that nonsense. People will do whatever they want to do. If we fully embrace the idea that second hand smoke is nuisance what's next? Banning BBQ grills because vegans and vegetarians don't like the smell of fresh meat cooking. Banning the consumption of meat because seeing other people consume it may be offensive to others.
Where does it stop? Sometimes you just have to follow the advice good parents used to tell their children. Address the issue or ignore it/ or improvise, adapt, overcome.
You always have the option of politely asking someone to step downwind from you, stepping downwind from the person or just moving to another area.
I think all the information/over inflated information about smoking causes people to think they are comfortable when they in reality they are not effected. Kind of like when you find out someone near you has head lice or your dog has fleas. You start itching thinking they are all over you.
Secondhand smoke kills. That's not an opinion, that's reality. Secondhand meat doesn't.
Bellaboo 05-06-2012, 08:25 PM Secondhand smoke kills. That's not an opinion, that's reality. Secondhand meat doesn't.
+ 100 ...just had a friend die from cancer, wasn't pretty...she had been a long term smoker.
WATCHER 05-07-2012, 01:17 PM When you have a restaurant or bar, you become a public space, which I am free to visit as I wish. When you allow smoking in these places you are filling up the public air with harmful smoke, which is infringing on my rights. That's how I view it. Also, you are always free to go outside and smoke, you won't be losing your right to smoke.
On top of this, it's been shown that most establishments increase their business when smoking is banned.
All business owners have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
WATCHER 05-07-2012, 01:21 PM A law banning smoking is just as intrusive as a law mandating that smoking be allowed? That's just a ridiculous comparison and you can't compare the two. And you can go into the health risks even though alcohol is sold. Alcohol isnt a factor here because if someone next to me is having a drink it doesn't affect my health. Not true with smoking.
Simply put, eating and drinking establishments are public places, and I have a right to go to a public place and not be subjected to smoke.
Why would you want to go to a place where you are not welcome?
WATCHER 05-07-2012, 01:25 PM I do understand the effects of second hand smoke, but I make the choice to go into that bar and be around it. It's just as simple for someone to choose to not go into that bar because of the smoke and go some place that is smoke free. If governments keep banning things, where does it stop? That's my main concern.
Oh, and anything is potentially lethal... too much water, too much sun exposure, too much Micky D's. The mortality rate of humans is holding steady at 100%.
good debate... except for a little name calling
The problem with non smokers is that they want to control everyone else.
WATCHER 05-07-2012, 01:36 PM I am very polite and caring when I smoke to the people around me until they decide to make a big deal out of it and that is when I decide to not care anymore and will give my best effort to get them to leave.
Bellaboo 05-07-2012, 01:57 PM The problem with non smokers is that they want to control everyone else.
NO ! They just want to control the air they breath............ nothing wrong with that.
onthestrip 05-07-2012, 02:58 PM All business owners have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
It's still a public space
rcjunkie 05-07-2012, 09:41 PM It's still a public space
You sir are correct, which means it for the entire public to enjoy, not just smokers!!!
WATCHER 05-08-2012, 06:09 AM What right do you have to screw up the air that I breath ? If I have the right to be there, then I should have the right to breath clean air.....period.
If a business allows smoking I have every right to smoke in that business. Why do people who moan and groan about smoking go into a business that allows smoking? People like that seem to have personal control issues in my opinion. The seen to expect the red carpet treatment when they enter a business and expect other to react to them for some reason.
WATCHER 05-08-2012, 06:19 AM The people who throw spastic fits about smoking have bought into the propaganda that fills the airways about smoking. It is a form of brainwashing and weak minded people are easily brainwashed.
Wambo36 05-08-2012, 10:05 AM The people who throw spastic fits about smoking have bought into the propaganda that fills the airways about smoking. It is a form of brainwashing and weak minded people are easily brainwashed. You've allowed yourself to become addicted to one of the most addictive substances around, either through peer pressure or because you bought in to the advertising, and now you're lecturing people about the weak minded? That's rich.
BBatesokc 05-08-2012, 10:24 AM I am very polite and caring when I smoke to the people around me until they decide to make a big deal out of it and that is when I decide to not care anymore and will give my best effort to get them to leave.
If you were truly being 'polite and caring' then they wouldn't be making a 'big deal out of it.' But, obviously if they have to smell it and inhale it then you're not being 'polite and caring.'
Of course the best part is, you can whine and cry all you want about it, but you (and other smokers) keep getting pushed further and further into irrelevance.
Your rights end where mine begin.
Roadhawg 05-08-2012, 11:14 AM I'm an ex smoker, except for a cigar now and then, but I still think the owner should have the right to decide if they allow smoking or not. It should be clear for anybody that wants to work or go in there it allows smoking so you are either working or being there at your own risk. Nobody is forcing an employee to work at a business that allows smoking nor are non smokers being forced to give that establishment their business. If you don't like smoking then don't give that place your business or don't apply for a job there. Let folks take some responsibility for themselves instead of making everybody do it.
betts 05-08-2012, 11:13 PM The people who throw spastic fits about smoking have bought into the propaganda that fills the airways about smoking. It is a form of brainwashing and weak minded people are easily brainwashed.
You sir or madam, are at best exceptionally ignorant or being deliberately obtuse.
My daughter is the only one of her friends who doesn't smoke. That's because her daddy took her on rounds with him at the hospital. At age 4, she went up to someone who was smoking and said, "Don't you know if you do that they cut your face off?" Turns out one of of the patients they'd seen that morning had had a hemi-facectomy for oropharyngeal cancer. From smoking. She was only 4, but she was a quick learner.
wallbreaker 05-08-2012, 11:34 PM + 100 ...just had a friend die from cancer, wasn't pretty...she had been a long term smoker.
Ok, so that's a statement supporting smoking kills, not secondhand. In fact, I see person after person in this thread talking about how long those non-smokers they know or in their families have lived. Did they really manage to never be around smokers? Especially since, if you lived past 80 (hell if you're over 40) you lived in times that many restaurants/business were full smoking. How are all those poor people who were exposed to second hand smoke living to be 80+, and all those smokers dying so young? Should those non-smokers die young too?
Not that I think secondhand smoke is harmless. I pretty much accept that it's dangerous. I'm a non-smoker with asthma, and I'm pretty sure it's from my father's smoking. I just see over and over again in this discussion people using a smoker dying or non-smokers living as some sort of proof that second hand smoke kills. I don't see the logic connect.
Bunty 05-09-2012, 01:20 AM Ok, so that's a statement supporting smoking kills, not secondhand. In fact, I see person after person in this thread talking about how long those non-smokers they know or in their families have lived. Did they really manage to never be around smokers? Especially since, if you lived past 80 (hell if you're over 40) you lived in times that many restaurants/business were full smoking. How are all those poor people who were exposed to second hand smoke living to be 80+, and all those smokers dying so young? Should those non-smokers die young too?
Not that I think secondhand smoke is harmless. I pretty much accept that it's dangerous. I'm a non-smoker with asthma, and I'm pretty sure it's from my father's smoking. I just see over and over again in this discussion people using a smoker dying or non-smokers living as some sort of proof that second hand smoke kills. I don't see the logic connect.
Probably most non smokers who lived past 80 never worked 8 hours, or more, a day in a confined place where smoke was usually visible in the air. Being a heavy drinker also tends to take years from your life.
BBatesokc 05-09-2012, 07:18 AM I just see over and over again in this discussion people using a smoker dying or non-smokers living as some sort of proof that second hand smoke kills. I don't see the logic connect.
This is all I really need..... http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke Call it propaganda, but its from a respected source.
I say let the smokers smoke - its just another way to thin out the herd. With the downside being the rest of us often have to pay their self-inflicted medical bills.
Maynard 05-09-2012, 08:04 AM ---
---
Call it propaganda, but its from a respected source.
---
On the passive smoke fraud (http://forces.org/Forces_Articles/article_viewer.php?author=John%20Dunn,%20MD)
John Dunn, MD -- Article Published: 05/11/2008
[...]The second hand smoke population studies are a secret joke in the epidemiology and public health field, because there is a devoted and fanatic group that knows they are playing with people’s cancer and health fears. The fanatics of the church of the stubbed cigarette know that smoking prohibition can only be accomplished by the second hand smoke panic but the data and research for their crusade are weak and unreliable. They also know that the media make panicmongering an art form. So the fanatics exaggerate, have the suburban housewives and mothers as well as nervous politicians in a panic to protect the kids, the handsome and earnest physician on TV reads the claims that cigarette smoke is killing thousands of American kids in the streets, more deaths in America than you can imagine. It’s a wonder we haven’t had violence, but that is so far.
As an emergency physician, I am a toxicologist by training and necessity, I know that the anti smoking physicians are campaigning to eliminate cigarette smoking, and couldn’t be bothered by a lack of good science on second hand smoke. Toxicology is about dose, and second hand smoke in its worst case is less than a cigarette a day. Smoking a cigarette a day is not a cancer or any other health risk, thanks to the fact that the dose is insignificant and bodies are not that fragile. The studies on health effects of ETS all show effects in small ranges below level of proof[...]
BBatesokc 05-09-2012, 08:22 AM I only have to read a couple of paragraphs of that article to be convinced I don't take that MD seriously. "The church of the smoke haters"? Yeah, lots of credibility there.
Maynard 05-09-2012, 08:30 AM I only have to read a couple of paragraphs of that article to be convinced I don't take that MD seriously. "The church of the smoke haters"? Yeah, lots of credibility there.
"Cherry-picking" data [paragraphs] just like the EPA, eh?
;)
betts 05-09-2012, 09:45 AM I only have to read a couple of paragraphs of that article to be convinced I don't take that MD seriously. "The church of the smoke haters"? Yeah, lots of credibility there.
Agree. It's an opinion piece, not a scientific document. Also, medicine is still in the dark ages regarding vulnerability of different individuals to different diseases. In general, doctors and scientists have no idea what dose creates disease in different people. There are definitely people who are genetically more vulnerable than others to a variety of diseases. One person might develop cancer or emphysema at a very low dose and someone else might have lifelong exposure without problems. It's almost assuredly a genetic difference between those two people that explains the difference. Until we are sophisticated enough to test people at birth to determine what their risks are, we have to assume that everyone is at risk at the lowest possible dose that is known to cause disease. That's the only way to knowingly prevent disease. With some drugs we recognize they will cause disease in some, but the benefits justify the risks. I don't see any benefits to smoke exposure that would justify taking the risk of disease. The personal freedom of a smoker stops where he or she infringes on the rights of others to be free of disease.
Larry OKC 05-09-2012, 10:29 AM Agree. It's an opinion piece, not a scientific document. Also, medicine is still in the dark ages regarding vulnerability of different individuals to different diseases. In general, doctors and scientists have no idea what dose creates disease in different people. There are definitely people who are genetically more vulnerable than others to a variety of diseases. One person might develop cancer or emphysema at a very low dose and someone else might have lifelong exposure without problems. It's almost assuredly a genetic difference between those two people that explains the difference. Until we are sophisticated enough to test people at birth to determine what their risks are, we have to assume that everyone is at risk at the lowest possible dose that is known to cause disease. That's the only way to knowingly prevent disease. With some drugs we recognize they will cause disease in some, but the benefits justify the risks. I don't see any benefits to smoke exposure that would justify taking the risk of disease. The personal freedom of a smoker stops where he or she infringes on the rights of others to be free of disease.
Hmmm, not the same thing of course but we have taken the same approach when it comes to a few other things (protecting the most vulnerable in society, be it underaged etc), be it alcohol, content of popular media etc. Some folks can be exposed to the same book, program, movie or song lyric and not be effected, while it just might be the trigger that sets some other person off. Not for or against, just an observation.
Dubya61 05-09-2012, 10:58 AM Hmmm, not the same thing of course but we have taken the same approach when it comes to a few other things (protecting the most vulnerable in society, be it underaged etc), be it alcohol, content of popular media etc. Some folks can be exposed to the same book, program, movie or song lyric and not be effected, while it just might be the trigger that sets some other person off. Not for or against, just an observation.
What a slippery slope! and now you've put on your teflon-coated skis! Are you saying that if only certain books, movies or songs were outlawed, that certain murderer wouldn't have gone all psycho and killed that poor innocent who wasn't as susceptible to the devil's handiwork. Don't get me wrong. I'm an ex smoker who can't stand smoking. I just think you derailed the process here.
Larry OKC 05-09-2012, 12:24 PM Not me, but that is what some have argued...just noting the similarities
Questor 05-09-2012, 09:43 PM I only have to read a couple of paragraphs of that article to be convinced I don't take that MD seriously. "The church of the smoke haters"? Yeah, lots of credibility there.
The guy's a toxicologist, not an oncologist, and certainly not a scientific researcher, so that explains a lot.
Bellaboo 05-10-2012, 10:33 AM "Cherry-picking" data [paragraphs] just like the EPA, eh?
;)
Listen, smoking sucks. It's about the most nasty god awful intrusive habit a person can inflict on someone.......there is NO 'public place' smoking justification.
Maynard 05-10-2012, 10:43 AM R8eoEygHyho
Maynard 05-10-2012, 11:40 AM I think I suddenly want to become a butcher. Except I wish to butcher my animals wherever I wish. Sorry if I get any blood on you. And don't worry about that puddle, just walk through it. Statistically speaking, you are not likely to die from walking on blood. You might smell funny for a while but hey, don't you dare trample on my rights!
How's that for hyperbole? :)
"Vote with your feet". Don't like smoking at a particular place? Don't go -- simple!
Business owners should have the choice, but there will always be those who try to usurp private property rights.
BBatesokc 05-10-2012, 12:03 PM "Vote with your feet". Don't like smoking at a particular place? Don't go -- simple!
Business owners should have the choice, but there will always be those who try to usurp private property rights.
Nah...... we did better, we still go to those places..... you just can't smoke there!
Business owners don't get to choose if they put in fire suppression, follow health codes, abide by handicap access regulations. This is a health and safety issue and obviously those with the power to implement agree.
Maynard 05-10-2012, 12:15 PM Nah...... we did better, we still go to those places..... you just can't smoke there!
Business owners don't get to choose if they put in fire suppression, follow health codes, abide by handicap access regulations. This is a health and safety issue and obviously those with the power to implement agree.
They do have the right to refuse service to anyone, including non-smokers.
Bellaboo 05-10-2012, 12:17 PM They do have the right to refuse service to anyone, including non-smokers.
And smokers too. So ?
Maynard 05-10-2012, 12:18 PM And smokers too. So ?
Exactly. So, "vote with your feet". :)
BBatesokc 05-10-2012, 12:21 PM Exactly. So, "vote with your feet". :)
Why? When we can do better than that - and did.
Again, its not a customer rights issue or a business owner rights issue - its a health and safety issue. Like it or not. Personally, I really like it!
Bellaboo 05-10-2012, 12:32 PM If you are out and need to smoke, just go to your car, as long as it's not on state property that is, and keep the windows up too, it's a better effect, that way your entire body will stink like an old ash trey.
Larry OKC 05-10-2012, 12:35 PM BBatesokc: isn't there an exemption for smaller businesses? And IIRC the legislature exempted their own offices. If it is a health/safety issue, what about the health/safety of those folks?
Sheetkeecker 05-10-2012, 02:24 PM The government should outlaw all bad habits and seize control of all grocery stores and food production facilities, nationwide.
Control all farming and food products of any kind whatsoever.
The FDA will set menus and quantities for all citizens.
Committees will be formed to oversee this, a Food Czar named.
Eliminate obesity as Mrs. Obama says.
Bellaboo 05-10-2012, 03:16 PM The government should outlaw all bad habits and seize control of all grocery stores and food production facilities, nationwide.
Control all farming and food products of any kind whatsoever.
The FDA will set menus and quantities for all citizens.
Committees will be formed to oversee this, a Food Czar named.
Eliminate obesity as Mrs. Obama says.
Does this have something to do with this topic ?
Sheetkeecker 05-10-2012, 03:22 PM Does this have something to do with this topic ?
"Yes"
|
|