Author Topic: Non Smoking (Read 1226 times)

Eagler · « **Reply #15 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:19:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nifty
lemme rephrase this again... If the amendment was to ban smoking from inside restaurants only, I'd probably vote for it. It's not. It's banning smoking from inside of all workplaces.

and by the way, you still won't have a smoke free bar. Stand alone bars are excluded from the amendment.

I can't think of many busineses, cept for mom & pop, that allow smoking inside today

call it what you want, its about the restaurants.

comparing cig smoke smell to old ppl or B.O. can't be done. Haven't heard of anyone getting cancer from either of those two...

It's stinks and is a health hazard. Make them stand outside. Why should they complain, they get to take smoke breaks thoughout the day. Refusing them those breaks would violate their "rights" but having me smell/breathe their smoke doesn't violate mine?

funkedup · « **Reply #16 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:21:50 PM »

I am a non-smoker and live in CA. I think the anti-smoking laws here are pathetic. Health risks of second-hand smoke are greatly overstated. I realize smoking is bad, but it's not the government's decision to make. The decision should be left up to business owners and individuals.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #17 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:22:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
but having me smell/breathe their smoke doesn'r violate mine?

No, you are free to leave at any time you like. You are also free to go find another restraunt to eat at.

There is no invasion of your health because you walked into a smokey bar... you wanna risk your health, you are free to eat there... if you don't wanna risk your health, go find a smoke-free restraunt to eat at.

Not that hard, but no... it's easier to make everyone do things your way.
-SW

Wlfgng · « **Reply #18 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:22:19 PM »

it goes further than that IMO.

IF you could contain smoke (in public places) so that it didn't affect those that don't want to breathe in that crap that's proven to cause serious health issues, then sure, let them smoke.

The problem is that unless you build enclosures to keep the deadly stuff out of everyone elses lungs then you are forcing all those that stroll by to breathe it in.

If it's ok to force other people to breathe it why stop there ?
let's let em put out toxic smoke of all kinds.
how about toxic fumes?

any different ?

gofaster · « **Reply #19 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:22:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nifty
I'm voting against it. I feel I have no right to tell an owner of a workplace if they can or cannot smoke inside. Especially if I do not work there.

Bars and private workspaces are already exempt from the amendment.

I'm voting for it. Most of the major companies already have a non-smoking policy thanks to lawsuits by workers (one of the few times I've been in favor of such things).

I'm particularly interested in seeing what becomes of the proposal to repeal the amendment to build a bullet train from Miami to Orlando to Tampa to Jacksonville. I didn't vote for the bullet train and nobody I spoke with after the results were announced voted for it either. I never even knew it was on the ballot until I sat there punching chads. The whole time I was reading the proposal, I kept having visions of "The Simpsons" episode when Springfield builds a monorail, just to show up its rival, a neighboring town.

Eagler · « **Reply #20 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:32:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe

No, you are free to leave at any time you like. You are also free to go find another restraunt to eat at.

There is no invasion of your health because you walked into a smokey bar... you wanna risk your health, you are free to eat there... if you don't wanna risk your health, go find a smoke-free restraunt to eat at.

Not that hard, but no... it's easier to make everyone do things your way.
-SW

hmm

I wouldn't be in a smokey bar

but what if my family and I are out to dinner & sitting there first and across the half wall in the "smoking section", a chain smokin dragon lady twin of my older sister sits down and starts her endless trail of smoke & coughing

I should leave?

they can smoke, but I shouldn't have to smell/taste it

I can sit there and crap my pants and let everyone enjoy the aroma but I think that's what the restroom is for

put them in glass cages and feed them butts...

narsus · « **Reply #21 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:35:56 PM »

Smoker here,

Just did a bit of research can't find a single instance of someone dying from second hand smoke. Interesting.

I don't go to resturants that don't have smoking sections, my choice. My business there are 6 employees all of which smoke under this law we couldn't smoke. BULLSH#T!

Government so concerned, make it illegal, done problem solved I would have to quit etc. But of course they will never make it illegal they are making too much money from it. Places I eat in NY, are an enclosed area, basically a glass box with ventilation above.

All you non-smokers you get more poisoning from commuting than second hand smoke. Can you say brake dust and fuel emissions yummy.

SOB · « **Reply #22 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:38:31 PM »

Oregon works it pretty nice. No smoking, except in bars or the bar areas of a resturaunt. I'm a non-smoker who can't stand cigarette smoke, and I have yet to encounter a problem with this. Even as an anal-retentive non-smoker I can't imagine smoking not being allowed in a bar...that's just retarded.

SOB

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #23 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:39:41 PM »

I should leave?

No, but there are things that can be done to remedy the situation. If you haven't gotten your food yet, ask to have your table moved.

If that doesn't work, ask to have them moved further away.

If that doesn't work, politely ask them to not smoke until you are done.

If all of the above doesn't work, complain to the management.

The solution to this situation is not to vote for over-reactionary laws because you can't see the forest for the trees.

A law that would make more sense would be a divider wall or something in which smoking/nonsmoking essentially get their own air supply or are sectioned off better...

Instead you want all smokers to not be able to smoke until they go outside.

Hows about instead of voting for the extreme measures dooche bag laws, go for the ones that will happily satisfy both parties? It is possible, I don't know if you knew that tho.
-SW

Eagler · « **Reply #24 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:42:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by narsus
Smoker here,

Just did a bit of research can't find a single instance of someone dying from second hand smoke. Interesting.

I don't go to resturants that don't have smoking sections, my choice. My business there are 6 employees all of which smoke under this law we couldn't smoke. BULLSH#T!

Government so concerned, make it illegal, done problem solved I would have to quit etc. But of course they will never make it illegal they are making too much money from it. Places I eat in NY, are an enclosed area, basically a glass box with ventilation above.

All you non-smokers you get more poisoning from commuting than second hand smoke. Can you say brake dust and fuel emissions yummy.

Its rare that we sit down to a meal at the tail pipe of a running auto

ain't worried about cancer, grew up in a very smoke friendly household - if I'm gonna get it, I got it already, I just don't like the smell and it irrates my sinuses and ruins the taste f a good meal.

Wlfgng · « **Reply #25 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:00:04 PM »

Glad I live where I do.. NO smoking allowed in public spaces. Period.

Too bad they can't include the ski hill...
it sucks to make a run in the crisp cold air, feeling awesome at 10k+ only to get on a lift chair behind some ciggie gasping dweeb that thinks it's his right to do whatever he pleases, regardless of how it affects others.

IMO Americans wouldn't have this attitude of 'no harm done' with cigarette smoke if it weren't for the Tobacco companies.

As for the attitude of 'can't prove second hand smoke is harmful'.. get a clue. Just because something is difficult to prove statistically doesn't mean it isn't the truth.
And yeah, some other toxins may be more harmful (I.E. auto exhaust) but so what..?
It's ok to add more toxins just because 'it' isn't 'as' harmful?

lol

midnight Target · « **Reply #26 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:09:25 PM »

I just left the lefty liberal local 145 meeting, and we decided that running JB73's life is what we really want to do. So get those butts outta here Mr.!

Actually I quit almost 3 yrs ago, so I really don't care... isn't that terrible? We have a small bar near our work that is run by the owners. They allow smoking, since thay have no employees. They get a lot of business too.

Sikboy · « **Reply #27 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:11:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wlfgng

IMO Americans wouldn't have this attitude of 'no harm done' with cigarette smoke if it weren't for the Tobacco companies.

That's why there's hardly any smoking in Europe and Asia.

-Sik

Eagler · « **Reply #28 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:14:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wlfgng
Too bad they can't include the ski hill...
it sucks to make a run in the crisp cold air, feeling awesome at 10k+ only to get on a lift chair behind some ciggie gasping dweeb that thinks it's his right to do whatever he pleases, ....

Bet he/they just flick the butt right out into their "global ashtray" too

capt. apathy · « **Reply #29 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:16:51 PM »

Quote

Just did a bit of research can't find a single instance of someone dying from second hand smoke. Interesting.

Maybe not, but I do remember my dad telling me about when he used to tend bar. He’d never smoked. He goes into the Drs. office for a lung infection. The Dr. tells him 'first thing you gotta do is quit smoking' he told the Dr he didn't smoke and the Dr says 'roadkill', he didn't believe him till he found out he worked in a bar.

He had all the lung troubles of a smoker. Although that should be taken into account before you decide to work in a bar.

In most other instances a person should be able to be free from smoke if it's a problem for them.

However if nobody in the work area minds the gov't should butt the hell out.

Before these laws came into effect it wouldn't matter if there where 25 guys smoking in the break trailer, if one guy says it bothers him they all put them out, smoke outside, or the company sometimes provides 2 trailers so those who smoke can have their own. Now that’s not good enough. There can be no smoking in any trailers or indoor areas even if all that work there smoke.

Maybe if smokers had been more considerate before it wouldn't be so bad now. But these laws seem to have gone too far to me.
A sad thing when it gets so out of hand that the gov't feels it has to legislate common courtesy