Author Topic: Non Smoking (Read 1233 times)

easymo · « **Reply #60 on:** October 28, 2002, 08:23:52 PM »

People, by nature, are going to make of these reports, what they want. Based on what they have been sold, or what they want to be true. I followed this story fairly closely, when it came out. I am a 40+ year smoker, and I rasied 3 kids. I was concerned what effects my smoking might have had. What all this verbiage from the WHO, and the people that object to their findings, amounts to is this. After 14 years, the percentage of possible harmful effects, was less then the percentage for possible error in the report. After all of that, the worse that they could claim, was that their own findings where inconclusive. Not much to show for 14 years of trying.

(thank god for spellchecker:)

Karnak · « **Reply #61 on:** October 28, 2002, 08:38:09 PM »

Eagler,

Here in CA it has actually increased the business for most bars as people who previously avoided them due to the smoke now see them as viable recreation. That said, your milage may vary depending on the percentage of smokers in your state.

Sandman · « **Reply #62 on:** October 28, 2002, 08:39:33 PM »

READ: It's not a good plan in Virginia.

Saintaw · « **Reply #63 on:** October 29, 2002, 04:25:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sikboy

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

-Sik

Huh ? 'scuse me ?

Japan probably had the highest smoking/pple in the 80's. There are cigarette vending machines in the streets every 50 meters.
Try the PRC.
Ever been to France/Italy/Spain ? seems to me nearly everybody smokes there.

In most european countries, you still have ashtrays on pple's desks in their offices.

The only country in Yurop where I've seen a lot less smoking is England. (All those damn veggies too!

)

We don't condone smoking here, we condone advertising about smoking (No more Spa/Francorchamp due to the cigarette adds)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #64 on:** October 29, 2002, 06:16:38 AM »

I am going to apply for a grant from the World Health Organization to study whether or not bad body odor can be a contributing factor for emphysema... If I gather enough bogus data, I'll bet I could prove it... Better yet asthma... yeah... If I can show that BO hurts our children, I can force the passage of a law that requires people to take supervised showers thrice daily. Supervision would be required to make sure each person was thorough. And the law would say that we have to change our underwear several times a day, and underwear would be worn on the outside, so we could check. (thanks Woody) I'll bet Proctor and Gamble would chip in some of the grant money...yeah...

>edit> second hand BO... that's what indiscriminately kills thousands of underprivileged people in the third world, and the scourge is headed here!

Sikboy · « **Reply #65 on:** October 29, 2002, 06:59:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saintaw

Huh ? 'scuse me ?

Ooops, time to read all the way through

-Sik

gofaster · « **Reply #66 on:** October 29, 2002, 07:49:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by narsus
All I am saying is there should be smoking and non-smoking areas, in public places I don't care if it is sectioned off by glass or not. If I want to smoke I should be able to, if you want smoke free you should have that too.

There already are such areas. The Fl. amendment would simply eliminate it from work environments, such as offices and employee commons areas, and from indoor areas where such segregation wouldn't be possible, such as hotel lobbies.

Eagler · « **Reply #67 on:** October 29, 2002, 07:54:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by gofaster

There already are such areas. The Fl. amendment would simply eliminate it from work environments, such as offices and employee commons areas, and from indoor areas where such segregation wouldn't be possible, such as hotel lobbies.

show me place, other than an airport, where smokers have to go into a sealed room to smoke. Ice Palace I think has such a place too. Can't think of a single restaurant..

gofaster · « **Reply #68 on:** October 29, 2002, 07:55:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by easymo
crap. Now they will want to outlaw booze.

That was already done via the Temperance Movement. Al Capone could tell you all about how successful it was.

gofaster · « **Reply #69 on:** October 29, 2002, 08:06:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler

show me place, other than an airport, where smokers have to go into a sealed room to smoke. Ice Palace I think has such a place too. Can't think of a single restaurant..

El Pilon on MacDill is completely smoke-free. So is Hugo's on Howard. Can you tell I like my Cuban food?

I guess I should post the relevant text of the amendment:

"WHEREAS, second-hand tobacco smoke is a known human carcinogen (contains cancer-causing agents) for which there is no safe level of exposure, and causes death and disease; WHEREAS, exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke frequently occurs in the workplace; and WHEREAS, ventilation and filtration systems do not remove the cancer-causing substances from second-hand smoke; NOW, THEREFORE, to protect people from the health hazards of second-hand tobacco smoke, the citizens of Florida hereby amend Article X of the Florida Constitution to add the following as section 20:

SECTION 20. Workplaces Without Tobacco Smoke.-

(a) Prohibition. As a Florida health initiative to protect people from the health hazards of second-hand tobacco smoke, tobacco smoking is prohibited in enclosed indoor workplaces.

(b) Exceptions. As further explained in the definitions below, tobacco smoking may be permitted in private residences whenever they are not being used commercially to provide child care, adult care, or health care, or any combination thereof; and further may be permitted in retail tobacco shops, designated smoking guest rooms at hotels and other public lodging establishments; and stand-alone bars. However, nothing in this section or in its implementing legislation or regulations shall prohibit the owner, lessee, or other person in control of the use of an enclosed indoor workplace from further prohibiting or limiting smoking therein."

So, if I read this correctly then, smoking would be prohibited inside Bennigan's, Chili's, Outback Steakhouse, Hooters, and other restaurants that have a bar within their eating areas? I'm liking this amendment more and more!

lazs2 · « **Reply #70 on:** October 29, 2002, 08:43:24 AM »

let's get this straight.... those who would save us from ourselves ALLWAYS overstate their case. One could say that they allways lie about the truth in order to take away our freedoms more easily.
lazs

Saintaw · « **Reply #71 on:** October 29, 2002, 09:00:45 AM »

Oooops Silkboy

Wlfgng · « **Reply #72 on:** October 29, 2002, 09:44:49 AM »

insane!!!

smokers think it's thier right to smoke .. at the expense of others.
Get real.

make a heated smoking area ??
hey it's your right to smoke but it doesn't mean we have to build spaces/enclosures for you, or go out of 'our' way to avoid, etc.

It should go like this:

It's your right to smoke as long as it doesn't intrude on the rights of others to breath fresh air.
Like many other freedoms this country has to offer, it has to have limits.

and to all those that say limiting smoking erodes yet another individual rights.. gimme a break.
So an individual right like say..spraying Chlorine Gas into the air is ok in a public space...I mean.. it's MY RIGHT, right?

jonnyb · « **Reply #73 on:** October 29, 2002, 10:30:51 AM »

So why is it, then, that smokers should have to go out of 'their' way just to appease you? Your comparison to spraying chlorine gas in the air is laughable. Chlorine gas is obviously a killer. Its effects are known. Second-hand tobacco smoke, and its effects are unclear.

If I go to a restaurant and find it too smoky for my like, I leave. If a co-worker wants to have a cigarette, by all means go ahead, heck, I'll probably join that co-worker just so I can get outside and enjoy being away from my desk.

You want to smoke while you're pregnant? Go right ahead. It's not my business. When you're on a chairlift and some guy in the chair in front of you lights up, sure, you might have to smell it. You might also have to smell the guy next to you rip one.

gofaster · « **Reply #74 on:** October 29, 2002, 10:34:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by jonnyb
So why is it, then, that smokers should have to go out of 'their' way just to appease you?

Because they're the ones that want to engage in an activity. They initiate the act and therefore bear the responsibility for that act, including being aware of those around them. If you engage in an act that's harmful and disruptful to others, then it is your responsibility to act properly. Not only is that proper ettiquette, its also going to be the law.