Smoking Bans

[Cleveland]

If theres rats in your resturaunt, the government can shut it down. I just don't follow the argument that an establishment that serves the public, even if its privately owned, is beyond regulation from the government.

You argument here is incorrect.

In order to serve food, you must have a license. In order to hold this license, you must meet health requirements. If you don't you can loose the license. The government cannot shut down the property, but they can shutdown your service. Most restarants obviously would close the doors if they cant serve food....but they do not have to. People can come in and sit there all day...so long as no food is served, then its perfectly legal.

The license and the service of selling food to citizens is regulated...not the actual property.

[Gafgarionn]

Too much in this one post that I gotta break it down.

A) There is a link between elctromagnetic radiation and brain tumors. Microwaves generate a huge amount of electromagnetic radiation. You do the math.

Maybe if you stuck your head in it. Besides, why is this even in the discussion? The whole "if you are gonna ban this then ban that" argument never worked with my momma when my older sister was able to stay up late and I wasn't. You know your argument is weak when you can't argue the pro's independantly.

B) Prove it or lose it? You can say the same for 2nd hand smoke. For evey clinical report that says it causes cancer, there is a clinical report refuting it. That is, if the initial report wasn't retracted already (you would be surprised).

Yeah, I saw the movie "Thank You for Smoking" too. Funny shit.

If you don't want people to smoke in public places..lets be smart about this and actually define these "public" places. Some place a non-smoker can go does not automatically make it "public." Some place a smoker can go does not automatically make it "private."

Public and Private are legally defined terms.

Never saw the movie. I was basing my argument about the clinical studies on fact, not Hollywood bullshit.

Public and Private are legally defined...loosely at best. There is no black or white. And currently the states with the bans are inter-changing these terms at will to suit their agenda.

And microwaves are in the argument because the make a nice comparison to to the smoking argument. They do not serve a purpose that something else already doesnt serve (safely), and they can deemd harmful, just like 2nd hand smoke.

The same grounds used to impose the smoking bans can infact be used on microwaves as well. Yet.....you all seem to have a big problem with banning microwaves.

Why is that?

Oh...I get it. You use microwaves, so it is much harder for you to imagine giving them up. You have become accustomed to them, and it would be hard for you to let them go.

See where I am going with this? Easy to say "ban it" when the banning doesn't effect you because you already do not partake of the item to be banned. Not so easy when its something that is a part of your life that is being banned, good or bad, now is it?

No... Find one case where someone got cancer specifically because of a microwave. You can't, because technology has developed so much that there are literally millions of carcinogens we are around every single day. To pin the cause of someone's cancer on a single one of them is also inaccurate. To ban all of them would cause such a regression that it just wouldn't be possible. Like I said earlier, I'm a smoker and I fully understand the other point of view. I'm in favor of a realistic smoking ban, but not one that bans it in all public places and in private establishments where the owner would like to allow it.

[Cleveland]

No... Find one case where someone got cancer specifically because of a microwave. You can't, because technology has developed so much that there are literally millions of carcinogens we are around every single day.

True, but the same could be said for 2nd hand smoke.

I can proclaim this microwave bullshit all day. I can get some university to back me up. I can start an add campaign. I can get it on a ballot....and I could get microwaves banned everywhere.

Sound familiar.

[Gafgarionn]

yea because pushing the root of any problem under the rug is definately a retarded idea. no no its ok, just ban the smoking and dont fix the real problem... just get it out of your face

You're right. Limiting the number of places a person can smoke does nothing to decrease their likelyhood to take up smoking in the first place. My mistake.

what i was saying earlier was instead of just treating smokers like that disabled cousin you never talk about living in the basement, convert that effort to end smoking all together.

And I suppose ending smoking all together can be accomplished without ending all places that you can smoke?

for all you care they can all die of cancer. which in it self is a very selfish and morally unacceptable way of approaching anything that involves other sentient creatures.

Anyone who feels they deserve to smoke in public places doesn't seem concerned if I die of cancer either.

Saying I'm void of morality while you are defending people who are actively endangering the people around them is ridiculous.

Read my previous example. A little second hand smoke literally poses no health risk to you if you have any concern for yourself. In fact, there are many more "dangers" around you that you're probably unaware of. Like I said, there's no need for smokers to be smoking in places where it's now allowed, or to be blowing it in peoples' faces, but be realistic.

[Xiona]

ive already stated many many pages back what i think should be done in order to compensate for current smokers being allowed to smoke in addition to preventing from anyone else from smoking.

state wide ban is fine, but unless you give them a booth to smoke... theyre just going to smoke right in your face at the doors. they do it in NY despite the "signs" that say stay away from the doors. smokers dont actually want to stand at the doors, usually its cold or wet. give them a suitable alternative to the front door like a room outside with a filter away from the front doors and theyll use that over the front door anyday.

[Gafgarionn]

No... Find one case where someone got cancer specifically because of a microwave. You can't, because technology has developed so much that there are literally millions of carcinogens we are around every single day.

True, but the same could be said for 2nd hand smoke.

I can proclaim this microwave bullshit all day. I can get some university to back me up. I can start an add campaign. I can get it on a ballot....and I could get microwaves banned everywhere.

Sound familiar.

No you couldn't. Think about how impractical it would be not to have microwaves. That cannot be said of smoking.

[Miji]

People keep bringing up that smoking is bad for you, has no real positive effects, etc, but ignore the main point of why this smoking ban is bad. The government is violating private property rights. It's just another step for the government to control every aspect of your life that we let them.

It doesn't matter if smoking is bad...if I chose to smoke I make the decision myself, and I don't need to be protected from myself thanks. Now...if I chose to smoke in a bar where the owner has allowed smoking on his own private property, and there are other people around, it's true that I am harming those people. HOWEVER, nobody is being forced to stay in that bar. When you enter the bar you enter it with full knowledge that you may get smoke blown in your face.

Things should not be illegal simply because the government and soccer moms across America decides they are. What's next? Fast food? Masturbation? Sleeping too much? Video games? They all provide just about the same effects that smoking does...they feels good/provide enjoyment to the person who's doing it. How about manditory exercise...that would certainly have benefits. Obesity is a serious medical problem across the country, if we could only force people to get into shape we'd be much better off!

The government already places restrictions through laws on what people can and cannot do on their private property. They're adding another one to the list. What makes this one different from fast food, masturbation, sleeping, and video games is that none of the things from that list endanger the health of others.

[Gafgarionn]

People keep bringing up that smoking is bad for you, has no real positive effects, etc, but ignore the main point of why this smoking ban is bad. The government is violating private property rights. It's just another step for the government to control every aspect of your life that we let them.

It doesn't matter if smoking is bad...if I chose to smoke I make the decision myself, and I don't need to be protected from myself thanks. Now...if I chose to smoke in a bar where the owner has allowed smoking on his own private property, and there are other people around, it's true that I am harming those people. HOWEVER, nobody is being forced to stay in that bar. When you enter the bar you enter it with full knowledge that you may get smoke blown in your face.

Things should not be illegal simply because the government and soccer moms across America decides they are. What's next? Fast food? Masturbation? Sleeping too much? Video games? They all provide just about the same effects that smoking does...they feels good/provide enjoyment to the person who's doing it. How about manditory exercise...that would certainly have benefits. Obesity is a serious medical problem across the country, if we could only force people to get into shape we'd be much better off!

The government already places restrictions through laws on what people can and cannot do on their private property. They're adding another one to the list. What makes this one different from fast food, masturbation, sleeping, and video games is that none of the things from that list endanger the health of others.

Yeah, but everyone has free will and if they walk into a bar where they know there could be smoking, it's their own damn fault. Go to a different bar. On the other hand, it's a touchier issue when dealing with children. For example, what should happen to smokers that have kids? Should the kids have to be subjected to that? I don't think so. In terms of private businesses it's just silly to impose a ban. Let them manage their own business.

[Enkidu]

Thank you for that pointless lesson in physics. Microwaves (the actual waves) which you have so eloquently pointed out, are not harmful persay. Microwaves, the boxes we cook food in, are. Electromagnetic fields are the issue, not the fucking waves. Remeber all those parents of retarded kids who sued the power company because the powerlines near their house were not properly shielded and caused them to be forest gumps?

What do you think causes the field? Magic? The field is just a consequence of the wave, and as you've seen the wave is not powerful enough to do anything to your cells. It's not a classical effect, take a brick for example. One brick falling on a house won't do much damage, but 100,000 will. For waves, it's very different. If 1 wave can't cause an effect, infinity waves of the same energy will do squat.

Just read this: http://skepdic.com/emf.html

[archibaldcrane]

Radiation
Some people are concerned with being exposed to the microwave radiation. The U.S. legal limit of leaking radiation is 1 mW/cm² at 5 cm (about 2 inches) from a new oven — for a used oven the allowed radiation is five times higher. It is rare for an oven to exceed these limits. As a comparison, a GSM mobile phone may emit up to 1 W at 1800 MHz, which is 3.2 mW/cm², at 5 cm, with a human being staying nearby (such as within 5 cm) for far longer periods of time. Whether or not cellular phones are hazardous to the health is also controversial (see mobile phone radiation and health).

In United States Of America Microwave ovens produced after 1971 must meet the Food and Drug Administration safety requirements for radiation leakage; less than 5 mW/cm² at 5 cm from the surface of the oven. This is far below the exposure level that is currently considered to be harmful to human health.

The radiation produced by a microwave oven is non-ionizing. As such, it does not have the cancer risks associated with ionizing radiation such as X-rays, ultraviolet light, and nuclear radioactive decay. Any cancer risk from microwave ovens would necessarily occur by an unknown mechanism. Such a mechanism, if existent, would also need to be far weaker than that for ionizing radiation, since long-term rodent studies of a type which easily identify cancer risks of ionizing radiation, have so far failed to clearly identify any carcinogenicity from 2450 MHz microwave radiation at chronic (large fraction of life span) exposure levels, far larger than humans are likely to encounter even from leaking ovens.

[Malaquist]

http://pawberry.net/forum/cig.gif

Monsters.

As for the car + microwave + god knows what else arguments because I don't feel like reading through this topic - while pretty much everything in the universe causes cancer at this point, that doesn't change the fact that smoking can royally screw with your body even if you completely ignore cancer. y hello thar emphysema!

It's true that second-hand smoke probably isn't going to suddenly make you keel over dead if you're only exposed to it in restaurants and bars, but as I sit near heavy smokers in my speech class and the corner constantly reeks of smoke, I can state that it is at the very least unpleasant. The argument "don't go where smokers are" doesn't work well because the scent of smoke is still on their clothes when they come inside after their break. If someone came in constantly smelling of BO because it's their right not to take a shower, would you appreciate it? I doubt it. Would people still stand up for him? More than likely.

[Kaelan]

lol...Every single argument pro-smoking I've seen so far has been on the basis of "other people do shitty stuff so I'm entitled to do as much shitty stuff as I want and you can't complain lulz".

Hay look a lot of stuff is bad for you! How about we minimize the dangers coming from one of them?(AMAZING DISCOVERY, I know) It would, you know, help people live better.


Is it that hard to just smoke somewhere else?

[Janice]

Yeah, but everyone has free will and if they walk into a bar where they know there could be smoking, it's their own damn fault. Go to a different bar. On the other hand, it's a touchier issue when dealing with children. For example, what should happen to smokers that have kids? Should the kids have to be subjected to that? I don't think so. In terms of private businesses it's just silly to impose a ban. Let them manage their own business.

So if they walk into a bar and find no one smoking, but then 10 minutes later a 200 people walk in smoking its their own damn fault too?

Buy some vodka, stay at home, and smoke, drink, puke all you want.

Smokers can eat shit and die for all I care. Women who wear purfume or use scented hair spray can too. I just so love coming into work and having to smell all these wonderful smells that make me want to vomit.

[Ksandra]

I fucking hate smoking. It smells so bad and makes me want to puck. I wish they'd ban it altogether, but I think they'd have to do it in stages. I think it's safe to assume most of the people working on these bills smoke, have smoked, or knows someone who smokes.

They've been pushing smoking more and more, and this is the next step imo to getting rid of them altogether.

And I say thank god to that. I hate thinking I'm being forced to ruin my lungs because of some idiot who I don't know decides to light one up while in my vicinity.

[Ashen]

I don't really lol @ the laws being passed because I disagree with them. Honsetly I do slightly sympathize with non-smokers who are pestered when I light up. But honestly, how are they going to enforce such a large ban? I mean, they barely enforce underage smoking around here as it is (I'm <18 and cops will litterally wave at me as I'm puffing on my "cancer stick"). If a bill like that gets passed around here, I doubt there will be any noticable effect.

[Pyree]

I'm all for a smoking ban. I really can't stand the smell of smoke, and I think I should be able to live my life without ever having to smell it. Smokers should have to go out of their way to find somewhere to smoke that won't bother anyone else, rather than non-smokers having to go out of their way to avoid smoke. We aren't the ones that're making the decision to smoke in the first place, so why should we have to work to avoid it?

[Popeh]

I don't really lol @ the laws being passed because I disagree with them. Honsetly I do slightly sympathize with non-smokers who are pestered when I light up. But honestly, how are they going to enforce such a large ban? I mean, they barely enforce underage smoking around here as it is (I'm <18 and cops will litterally wave at me as I'm puffing on my "cancer stick"). If a bill like that gets passed around here, I doubt there will be any noticable effect.

Of course you'll disagree with them.

Just like drug addicts are against the drug being illegal.

It's all about YOU.

[Gregorio]

I don't really lol @ the laws being passed because I disagree with them. Honsetly I do slightly sympathize with non-smokers who are pestered when I light up. But honestly, how are they going to enforce such a large ban? I mean, they barely enforce underage smoking around here as it is (I'm <18 and cops will litterally wave at me as I'm puffing on my "cancer stick"). If a bill like that gets passed around here, I doubt there will be any noticable effect.

Of course you'll disagree with them.

Just like drug addicts are against the drug being illegal.

It's all about YOU.

I've never smoked before and I'm against it. I've also never touched an illegal drug before in my life and I think they should be legal.

It's all about personal freedom and choices.

[SephYuyX]

But honestly, how are they going to enforce such a large ban?

Well, here in cincy all places must put up all these no smoking signs and take any sort of ash trys out.

Big whoop yeah, but, people can also call a number and if they report someone smoking and that person is caught, they get a $ reward. So im sure that will get people to keep an eye out for people smoking. If your caught smoking in a place youre not sposed to be, you have to pay a very large fine and may have jail time. If an owner is caught letting people smoke in his place, and is reported, he can lose his business.

So there are servere penaltys, and a few rewards. I think the first month or so will be the hardest on people, after that it will just be back to normal, but smoke free.

One guy already got fired from his job for smoking.

[Desideratum]

Well, have fun with that personal freedom and choice, so long as your choices don't interfere with someone else's. Because that's where your freedom ends.

Kill yourself all you want in your own home. I don't care. But you bring that shit out into public where I have to deal with it? Fuck that noise.

edit: Re: Cincinnati (because that's totally where I live)

Folks will get used to it here. In Lexington, they have been smoke free for a couple of years now, and it has worked out just fine. No one lost their business because all the smokers went elsewhere. People adjusted, and most folks I have talked to really enjoy the change.

Smokers may not realize it because they are around it all the time, but smoke is far more pervasive than you might think. I am delighted with the idea that I can come home from a night out and not have to throw my clothing in the washer immediately so that when I encounter them in the morning I don't want to vomit from the smell.

As someone mentioned above, a smoking section in a bar or restaurant is like a pissing section in a pool. That shit doesn't stay separate. So that means that your dirty little habit becomes everyone's problem, all because you have no self-control.