Thank God for anti-smoking laws

[thesloppy]

As a result of the recent anti-smoking laws passed in Oregon I can finally go to a Portland bar, relax and enjoy a drink in a smoke-free environment.

...unfortunately I also have to carry a shiv, because the exits/entrances to every bar in the goddamn state is now packed with meandering, smoking drunkards, and once it gets past 6 o'clock on the weekend any busy/populated street is suddenly fucking THUNDERDOME, and venturing anywhere at night invariably involves wading through packs and packs of carousing drunks that have now been forced outside, for my 'convenience'. I'm sure the thought of 'Downtown Portland, Oregon' puts the fear of God into absolutely none of you, but trust me when I say that after dark that shit has turned into a Death Wish movie.

Score another 'win' for big bro!

[Buccaneer]

In an earlier thread, I mentioned about not being a "true" hardcore liberatarian. I think of my love for anti-smoking laws in public places and how that is contradictory to be political and philosophical beliefs. But that becomes more of a personal ideal. Here in Colorado, you cannot smoke within 15 feet of any exits or entrances.

[Noop]

I have nothing against smokers as I am one myself(only weed) I think doing it in places where people are eating is bad form though.

[SackAttack]

I got no problem with a business owner wanting to cater to smokers.

I just think that it's foolish at best to think that smoke stays in a 'non-smoking' section in an open-air restaurant.

Have the sections in separate rooms. Folks who wanna light up, can. Folks who don't want the smell of cigarette smoke coming from three feet away where an arbitrary invisible line has been drawn, can enjoy their own meals.

A common sense approach would solve the issue. Moving into a building that doesn't have such a separation? Either renovate it, go completely non-smoking, or go smoke-wherever. Arbitrary imaginary lines do nothing where people who are already inclined to get huffy over cigarette smoke are concerned.

[sabotai]

In an earlier thread, I mentioned about not being a "true" hardcore liberatarian. I think of my love for anti-smoking laws in public places and how that is contradictory to be political and philosophical beliefs.

Ugh. You're such a quisling.

[RainMaker]

While I'm not a smoker, I have a problem with the government telling private citizens whether their guests are allowed to do a legal activity on their property. No different to me than the government telling you that you're not allowed to cook with sugar in your home.

[Lathum]

I got no problem with a business owner wanting to cater to smokers.

I just think that it's foolish at best to think that smoke stays in a 'non-smoking' section in an open-air restaurant.

Have the sections in separate rooms. Folks who wanna light up, can. Folks who don't want the smell of cigarette smoke coming from three feet away where an arbitrary invisible line has been drawn, can enjoy their own meals.

A common sense approach would solve the issue. Moving into a building that doesn't have such a separation? Either renovate it, go completely non-smoking, or go smoke-wherever. Arbitrary imaginary lines do nothing where people who are already inclined to get huffy over cigarette smoke are concerned.

The reason these laws are in place really have nothing to do with people wanting to smoke, etc...

The whole point of the law is to protect the employee from a hazardous work enviorment.

At least in NJ thats why the law was passed

[Lathum]

While I'm not a smoker, I have a problem with the government telling private citizens whether their guests are allowed to do a legal activity on their property. No different to me than the government telling you that you're not allowed to cook with sugar in your home.

I totally disagree.

Smoking in public infringes on the liberty of others to breath clean air.

[ISiddiqui]

Smoking in public infringes on the liberty of others to breath clean air.

So does driving a car.

[RainMaker]

I totally disagree.

Smoking in public infringes on the liberty of others to breath clean air.

In a public place it does. But someone's restaurant is their private property. You are not forced to eat at their restaurant.

[Buccaneer]

While I'm not a smoker, I have a problem with the government telling private citizens whether their guests are allowed to do a legal activity on their property.

I definitely do as well but that's why I mentioned it being a personal thing, healthwise.


No different to me than the government telling you that you're not allowed to cook with sugar in your home.

People say that but yet they permit, encourage or vote for/support those legislations and politicians doing just that. Many of their rules and regulations come in the form of penalties (which gets passed on to consumers) or blackmailing (your state/locale won't get federal funds unless...). It is one thing for the federal govt to track down and recall bad peanut paste (good thing to do) but another thing to establish many contradictory, overlapping and costly one-size-fits-all rules that you cannot affect. You would have much more greater control, relatively speaking, if your city council/county commissioners/school board were to do the same thing.

But we're talking about anti-smoking laws, which so far, are done state by state, which I think came out of city laws. Will it only be a matter of time before it becomes a federal law? We are allowing a lot of things to be dictated by Washington, why not this?

[cthomer5000]

The best side effect has certainly been that you don't need to incinerate the clothes you were wearing to the bar. The stench used to be so unreal the clothes had to be immediately washed, thrown out, or quarantined in their own garbage bag until on of those two eventual outcomes occured.

[Lathum]

In a public place it does. But someone's restaurant is their private property. You are not forced to eat at their restaurant.

A private place that is opened to the public, much different then someones home.

[Lathum]

The best side effect has certainly been that you don't need to incinerate the clothes you were wearing to the bar. The stench used to be so unreal the clothes had to be immediately washed, thrown out, or quarantined in their own garbage bag until on of those two eventual outcomes occured.

you are so right.

I bartended for 12 years on the Jersey Shore and the day that law was passed was a great day.

[thesloppy]

The reason these laws are in place really have nothing to do with people wanting to smoke, etc...

The whole point of the law is to protect the employee from a hazardous work enviorment.

At least in NJ thats why the law was passed

I believe this is the impetus behind the Oregon law as well, which is certainly understandable.

My rant was somewhat spurred on by encountering a bum this evening, on my way back from the post-office, who began furiously shadow boxing at me, while screaming at the top of his lungs "LET'S DANCE, PRETTY BOY!". He proceeded to scream at me as I walked past and for another few blocks, beyond the range of my hearing, he could still be going for all I know.....anyhow, that on its own wouldn't be that unusual, bums abound around here, but AFTER that I had to walk home and fight through a crowd of smoking, swanky drunks in front of the local hipster-bowling-alley, had to wade through a crowd of drunk, smoking bikers in front of the strip bar, a crowd of loud, smoking boys at the gay bar, and it was only 7 o'clock at night.


...so, maybe (a big) part of my problem could be that I live within walking distance of like 5 million crappy bars......but I'm going to stick with blaming it on the government.

[Buccaneer]

as I am one myself(only weed)

Sounds like you are proud of that.

Possession of 20 grams or less of marijuana is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

[Lathum]

I believe this is the impetus behind the Oregon law as well, which is certainly understandable.

My rant was somewhat spurred on by encountering a bum this evening, on my way back from the post-office, who began furiously shadow boxing at me, while screaming at the top of his lungs "LET'S DANCE, PRETTY BOY!". He proceeded to scream at me as I walked past and for another few blocks, beyond the range of my hearing, he could still be going for all I know.....anyhow, that on its own wouldn't be that unusual, bums abound around here, but AFTER that I had to walk home and fight through a crowd of smoking, swanky drunks in front of the local hipster-bowling-alley, had to wade through a crowd of drunk, smoking bikers in front of the strip bar, a crowd of loud, smoking boys at the gay bar, and it was only 7 o'clock at night.


...so, maybe (a big) part of my problem could be that I live within walking distance of like 5 million crappy bars......but I'm going to stick with blaming it on the government.

I hate walking through packs of smokers also, but I'll make that trade to breath clean air once I am inside.

But hey, at least you're pretty.

[Noop]

Sounds like you are proud of that.

There is nothing wrong with weed.

[Noop]

I believe this is the impetus behind the Oregon law as well, which is certainly understandable.

My rant was somewhat spurred on by encountering a bum this evening, on my way back from the post-office, who began furiously shadow boxing at me, while screaming at the top of his lungs "LET'S DANCE, PRETTY BOY!". He proceeded to scream at me as I walked past and for another few blocks, beyond the range of my hearing, he could still be going for all I know.....anyhow, that on its own wouldn't be that unusual, bums abound around here, but AFTER that I had to walk home and fight through a crowd of smoking, swanky drunks in front of the local hipster-bowling-alley, had to wade through a crowd of drunk, smoking bikers in front of the strip bar, a crowd of loud, smoking boys at the gay bar, and it was only 7 o'clock at night.


...so, maybe (a big) part of my problem could be that I live within walking distance of like 5 million crappy bars......but I'm going to stick with blaming it on the government.

A bum wanted to fight you? That is hilarious to me.

[SackAttack]

The reason these laws are in place really have nothing to do with people wanting to smoke, etc...

The whole point of the law is to protect the employee from a hazardous work enviorment.

At least in NJ thats why the law was passed

Cool I can dig that. Apropos of nothing, isn't NJ one of the states that requires gas to be pumped by a gas station attendant? Seems like long-term exposure to gasoline fumes would be dangerous too, wouldn't it?

[Lathum]

Cool I can dig that. Apropos of nothing, isn't NJ one of the states that requires gas to be pumped by a gas station attendant? Seems like long-term exposure to gasoline fumes would be dangerous too, wouldn't it?

It is, but all the gas station attendants are middle eastern, so they are really doing us a favor.

i kid i kid

Oddly enough, I think Oregeon is the other state. Not being able to pump your own gas is maybe one of the most annoying things ever.

[thesloppy]

A bum wanted to fight you? That is hilarious to me.

He was SUPER PISSED! The worst part about that entire encounter is that, as a red-blooded American male (even a pansy west-coaster), there is still a very small, very distant voice in my head telling me that I am totally a pussy for not throwing down with that crusty old bum.

"YOU WANT A PIECE OF THIS OLD MAN? YOU'VE GOT IT!"

Unfortunately, I am all too aware that could've opened the door to this being an "I got my ass kicked by a crusty old bum" story.

[RainMaker]

A private place that is opened to the public, much different then someones home.

No it's not. They are both private property. One simply has a more open invitation to their property.

By your example, restaurants that accept reservations should not have to abide by the law since they aren't technically open to the public.

[dubb93]

I just love the people who say they can go to the bar now. Yea, your right to get drunk in public should supersede someone elses right to smoke in public. That's one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

I understand some of the arguments, but that is the one that always gets me. Its a bar. I've been to alot of bars where the most dangerous thing in there was not the second hand smoke but the drunk hillbillies.

[Lathum]

No it's not. They are both private property. One simply has a more open invitation to their property.

By your example, restaurants that accept reservations should not have to abide by the law since they aren't technically open to the public.

It's apples and oranges.

I have worked in restaurants for a long time, and upper level managment for a good part of that.

Your argument is mute either way. There would be no competition between a restaurant that allowed smoking and one that didn't, the one that didn't allow smoking would crush the one that allowed it.

[Lathum]

I just love the people who say they can go to the bar now. Yea, your right to get drunk in public should supersede someone elses right to smoke in public. That's one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

I understand some of the arguments, but that is the one that always gets me. Its a bar. I've been to alot of bars where the most dangerous thing in there was not the second hand smoke but the drunk hillbillies.

not everybody who goes to a bar gets drunk.

I enjoy the fact I can have a drink after a movie without having to burn my cloths afterwards.

[dubb93]

not everybody who goes to a bar gets drunk.

I enjoy the fact I can have a drink after a movie without having to burn my cloths afterwards.

And the gentleman smoking his cigarette enjoys the fact that he can have a drink and a smoke.

[RainMaker]

It's apples and oranges.

I have worked in restaurants for a long time, and upper level managment for a good part of that.

Your argument is mute either way. There would be no competition between a restaurant that allowed smoking and one that didn't, the one that didn't allow smoking would crush the one that allowed it.

Really? Then why were there literally no bars that were smoke free? Why did most restaurants and bars fight heavily against these measures?

Like I said, I don't smoke, but I also don't like people telling other people what they and their guests can do on their private property.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah that whole no competition between a restaurant that had smoking and one that didn't is such BS. My regular bar is one that allows smoking (after 9 PM), less than mile away from bars in a city that doesn't allow smoking.

No "crushing" going on there.

[RainMaker]

not everybody who goes to a bar gets drunk.

I enjoy the fact I can have a drink after a movie without having to burn my cloths afterwards.

I think the point is that a bar is filled with alcohol and greasy unhealthy food. It's funny to see people going to a bar so concerned over some second hand smoke while they put down a few beers and eat some chicken wings.

And if you don't want to have to burn your clothes afterward, just have a drink at a bar that is non-smoking.

[Eaglesfan27]

There is nothing wrong with weed.

Except for the fact that it is illegal and it is a hallucinogen that can sometimes cause significant paranoia and other psychotic symptoms.

[Lathum]

I'm talking about restaurants, not bars

[dubb93]

Your argument is mute either way. There would be no competition between a restaurant that allowed smoking and one that didn't, the one that didn't allow smoking would crush the one that allowed it.

That VERY much depends on where you live. The anti-smoking measure was up for vote in my town this last election(maybe 2 elections ago). It lost....in fact it couldn't even get over 30% of the vote.

I will say the measure did do one though. It got one of the regulars at the local bar elected mayor. That has just done wonders for us.:eek:

[Lathum]

And the gentleman smoking his cigarette enjoys the fact that he can have a drink and a smoke.

why are there noise ordinates?

I mean, if I want to listen to my music in my front yard on full blast at 3:00 AM I should be able to, right?

[ISiddiqui]

Except for the fact that it is illegal and it is a hallucinogen that can sometimes cause significant paranoia and other psychotic symptoms.

Oh God.

Weed has far less negative effects than alcohol.

[Lathum]

There have also been econimic studies done that show a restaurants buisness goes up following the smoking ban.

[Lathum]

Oh God.

Weed has far less negative effects than alcohol.

just because A is worse then B doesn't mean A isn't bad also.

That being said I'm not anti weed

[Lathum]

dola- the government tells us we can't do alot of things in out private establishments

[Mustang]

dola- the government tells us we can't do alot of things in out private establishments

Doesn't mean it's right.

[Eaglesfan27]

Oh God.

Weed has far less negative effects than alcohol.

Try telling that to a family I treated whose daughter became psychotic "only on weed" and committed a serious crime because she was floridly psychotic. It is relatively rare, but it does happen.

[RainMaker]

why are there noise ordinates?

I mean, if I want to listen to my music in my front yard on full blast at 3:00 AM I should be able to, right?

Because you are then infringing on the rights of others on their own private property to be in peace. With a bar or restaurant, you are actively entering an establishment where you know what the conditions are.

[Eaglesfan27]

Not a dola -

Besides which it is illegal. You would think a soon to be lawyer wouldn't want to publicly admit that he is breaking a law which he will soon to be sworn to uphold (or is that only for public defenders? I admit I'm not exactly sure what is included when one becomes a member of the bar.)

[RainMaker]

There have also been econimic studies done that show a restaurants buisness goes up following the smoking ban.

Economic studies or not, it's their business and they should be able to run it how they want.

[RainMaker]

just because A is worse then B doesn't mean A isn't bad also.

But it does point out hypocrites.

[Lathum]

Because you are then infringing on the rights of others on their own private property to be in peace. With a bar or restaurant, you are actively entering an establishment where you know what the conditions are.

last I check it was illegal to physicaly harm someone on public or private property.

[ISiddiqui]

Try telling that to a family I treated whose daughter became psychotic "only on weed" and committed a serious crime because she was floridly psychotic. It is relatively rare, but it does happen.

Can I tell the opposite to a family whose loved one got killed by a drunk driver or became an alcohol and destroyed their life (add to the fact that alcohol is physically addictive and marijuana isn't)?

[Lathum]

Economic studies or not, it's their business and they should be able to run it how they want.

so should they be allowed to deal weed and coke or allow 14 year old girls to give blow jobs?

[RainMaker]

last I check it was illegal to physicaly harm someone on public or private property.

When someone gets charged with assault for smoking next to someone, your point will be well taken.

[dubb93]

Now its just getting silly.

[ISiddiqui]

last I check it was illegal to physicaly harm someone on public or private property.

Like I pointed out before, what about people who drive cars?

[ISiddiqui]

Not a dola -

Besides which it is illegal. You would think a soon to be lawyer wouldn't want to publicly admit that he is breaking a law which he will soon to be sworn to uphold (or is that only for public defenders? I admit I'm not exactly sure what is included when one becomes a member of the bar.)

Have you met many lawyers? ;)

[dubb93]

I love how smoking in a bar is now the same as dealing crack while getting blown by a 14 year old.

[Eaglesfan27]

Can I tell the opposite to a family whose loved one got killed by a drunk driver or became an alcohol and destroyed their life (add to the fact that alcohol is physically addictive and marijuana isn't)?

Actually, I can show you studies that prove marijuana is addictive, mental addiction is a powerful force that should not be underestimated. However, how do you get that I'm defending drunk driving because I'm against marijuana usage? I think alcohol is a potentially dangerous drug as well.

[Lathum]

Now its just getting silly.

sorry, I'm a little drunk

[Eaglesfan27]

Have you met many lawyers? ;)

Only a few. My uncle, a friend or two, and a few that I have run across professionally (one of whom was just murdered last week.)

[RainMaker]

Try telling that to a family I treated whose daughter became psychotic "only on weed" and committed a serious crime because she was floridly psychotic. It is relatively rare, but it does happen.

That's completely irrelevant. Yes it's sad, just as it's sad when a father dies at 45 from a heart attack because he ate healthy his whole life. We all make concious decisions about what we put into our bodies. Why can't we just leave people alone and let them do what they want with their own bodies?

[Lathum]

I love how smoking in a bar is now the same as dealing crack while getting blown by a 14 year old.

my point was extreme on purpose to show that just because it is a privatly owned buisnes establishment doesn;t mean you can do whatever you want

[dubb93]

my point was extreme on purpose to show that just because it is a privatly owned buisnes establishment doesn;t mean you can do whatever you want

However dealing crack and getting blown by a 14 year old are illegal everywhere. Smoking is not.

[Eaglesfan27]

And I misspoke (blame it on being tired), there are studies that prove marijuana is physically addictive as well as psychologically addictive and there are medically proven withdrawal states from marijuana.

[ISiddiqui]

Actually, I can show you studies that prove marijuana is addictive, mental addiction is a powerful force that should not be underestimated. However, how do you get that I'm defending drunk driving because I'm against marijuana usage? I think alcohol is a potentially dangerous drug as well.

Not many studies that show it is PHYSICALLY addictive (and I know of studies that show that it isn't - any studies that show alcohol isn't physically addictive?). What's worse, one that is mentally addictive or one that is physically and mentally addictive.

The vast majority of people have no problems with allowing alcohol or even praising it. But for some dumb reasons, marijuana isn't allowed the same.

[RainMaker]

my point was extreme on purpose to show that just because it is a privatly owned buisnes establishment doesn;t mean you can do whatever you want

In the same sense, shouldn't it be illegal to sell anything unhealthy? I mean a Big Mac, Fries and Coke at McDonalds is harming the individual who eats it. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to call for a ban on smoking but not on unhealthy foods?

[Radii]

Honestly none of the arguments make sense to me. I don't smoke, don't like it when my clothes smell like cigarette smoke, and prefer not to be around it at all, but I hate the way anti-smoking laws are handled.

But seriously, smoking isn't illegal. If its not illegal then the government shouldn't be able to pass a law telling a private business owner whether he is or is not allowed to accept smoking in his business. If the reason the government uses to dictate that is that smoking is SO deadly that adults need to be protected from themselves so they don't voluntarily work in a restaurant with smokers, or so that they don't voluntarily sit near smokers while they eat or drink, then why isn't the government banning cigarettes and smoking altogether so that parents cannot smoke around their children in their homes. Its a horseshit hypocritical argument IMO.

[Lathum]

In the same sense, shouldn't it be illegal to sell anything unhealthy? I mean a Big Mac, Fries and Coke at McDonalds is harming the individual who eats it. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to call for a ban on smoking but not on unhealthy foods?

no, because the people who eat at McDonalds are huring themselves only, that would be like me ordering a salad and someone making me eat fried chicken

[ISiddiqui]

Car example once more.

[chinaski]

As an Oregon smoker, im loving the ban. So much nicer on my lungs after a long night at the bar and ive been smoking much less. I really dont like the law in general, but im willing to concede for the health of society.

[Eaglesfan27]

Not many studies that show it is PHYSICALLY addictive (and I know of studies that show that it isn't - any studies that show alcohol isn't physically addictive?). What's worse, one that is mentally addictive or one that is physically and mentally addictive.

The vast majority of people have no problems with allowing alcohol or even praising it. But for some dumb reasons, marijuana isn't allowed the same.

There are several studies which show physiologically addictive properties and withdrawal phenomenon, and there is currently a large study funded by the NIH that will further examine the issue. There are also studies in the journal of neurology 2005 edition that show it alters blood flow in the brain in maladaptive manners. There are studies from John Hopkins in the neuroimaging journal which use PET scanning to show that there is reduced activity in the frontal lobe which correlates with impaired judgment. There are a bunch more articles I can dig up tomorrow. Those were just the top ones sitting in my filing cabinet from when I was teaching.

I agree that alcohol is dangerous as well with many medical issues from long term abuse, not limited to hepatic failure, esophageal tears, etc.

[Noop]

Not a dola -

Besides which it is illegal. You would think a soon to be lawyer wouldn't want to publicly admit that he is breaking a law which he will soon to be sworn to uphold (or is that only for public defenders? I admit I'm not exactly sure what is included when one becomes a member of the bar.)

Sorry I could care less I have never had weed effect me in any negative besides being hungry and sleepy. I don't recall hearing many stories of high drivers killing people oppose to alcohol which is legal in this country. The idea that I won't be able to learn how to be a lawyer because I smoke weed is absurd. If I have to take a drug test I would know well in advance of the test and could stop so that I pass my test.

[ISiddiqui]

There are several studies which show physiologically addictive properties and withdrawal phenomenon, and there is currently a large study funded by the NIH that will further examine the issue. There are also studies in the journal of neurology 2005 edition that show it alters blood flow in the brain in maladaptive manners. There are studies from John Hopkins in the neuroimaging journal which use PET scanning to show that there is reduced activity in the frontal lobe which correlates with impaired judgment. There are a bunch more articles I can dig up tomorrow. Those were just the top ones sitting in my filing cabinet from when I was teaching.
And there are studies that show a lack of physiological addictive properties (or rather, no real proof of any). And from anecdotal evidence, if there are physiological addictive properties, it ain't much worse than caffeine's. The long standing dispute over the addictive properties of marijuana, I would say, attest to that.

I agree that alcohol is dangerous
And who is seriously trying to get it banned?

[Eaglesfan27]

Well, they tried in the past, but it didn't go too well. Anyway, neither of us is going to change the other's mind. For those that are interested, here is a website with good scientifically backed info on the adverse effects of marijuana:

NIDA - Research Report Series - Marijuana Abuse (http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/marijuana/Marijuana3.html)

[RainMaker]

no, because the people who eat at McDonalds are huring themselves only, that would be like me ordering a salad and someone making me eat fried chicken

Isn't walking into a private establishment that allows smoking hurting yourself? I can understand if you want them to put up a warning sign or something letting people know there is smoking allowed inside, but outside of that, it seems like it's a concious choice by someone to hurt themself. Just like it is a concious decision to hurt themself by eating McDonalds.

[RainMaker]

I think the issue of marijuana bothers people because of the hypocritical viewpoints involved. If you are for the ban of marijuana, that is fine. But you should also be for the ban of alcohol, cigarettes, unhealthy food, and many prescription drugs. Those are all much more dangerous.

[Telle]

There are several studies which show physiologically addictive properties and withdrawal phenomenon, and there is currently a large study funded by the NIH that will further examine the issue. There are also studies in the journal of neurology 2005 edition that show it alters blood flow in the brain in maladaptive manners. There are studies from John Hopkins in the neuroimaging journal which use PET scanning to show that there is reduced activity in the frontal lobe which correlates with impaired judgment. There are a bunch more articles I can dig up tomorrow. Those were just the top ones sitting in my filing cabinet from when I was teaching.

I agree that alcohol is dangerous as well with many medical issues from long term abuse, not limited to hepatic failure, esophageal tears, etc.

Do you happen to have cites? I'm curious. And yay for having university access to journals :)

[thesloppy]

I can cite several studies that say I luv smoking weed.

[Eaglesfan27]

Do you happen to have cites? I'm curious. And yay for having university access to journals :)

Not sure if you want the cites for the PET scan article and the blood flow article or not? However, a great article that I just found in my filing cabinet is a review article from 2004 that has a bunch more citations on cannabis withdrawal which by definition entails physiological dependence:

Budney AJ, Hughes JR, Moore BA, Vandrew R: Review of the Validity and significance of cannabis withdrawal syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry 161:1967-77, 2004.


I'll give more citations tomorrow for the other stuff if you want, I'm off to bed.

[thesloppy]

For those that are interested, here is a website with good scientifically backed info on the adverse effects of marijuana:

NIDA - Research Report Series - Marijuana Abuse (http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/marijuana/Marijuana3.html)

Although admittedly a devout stoner, I would never, ever claim marijuana is harmless or non-addictive, and certainly any long-time smoker who doesn't acknowledge the obvious adverse physical effects aren't being truthful with themselves. On the other hand, that study carries a lot of bias and kind of bent-truths as well.

For example:

Studies show that approximately 6 to 11 percent of fatal accident victims test positive for THC. In many of these cases, alcohol is detected as well.

I am not in any way advocating driving inebriated, but unmentioned is the fact that (as far as I know) a user can test positive for marijuana up to 6 weeks after a single use, whereas alcohol is out of the bloodstream in 24 hours. It's impossible to say those 6 to 11 percent of victims with THC in their bloodstream had smoked marijuana within even a week or a month of the accident in question. In reality the only assumption we can make from those figures is that 6 to 11 percent of fatal car crash victims have used marijuana in the last month...which shouldn't surprise all that many people.

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers do.39 Many of the extra sick days used by the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses

That sounds nice and logical, but who here actually knows any stoners? (counts hands) Would you consider the number of sick days taken by a marijuana smoker to be an accurate judge of their health? Would you be surprised to learn that marijuana smokers take more sick days than non marijuana smokers? I think that gets a 'duh'. Again, that study claims to show a link between marijuana and poor health, but certainly there a million better and more direct indicators than reported sick days to do so.

Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco does.

While these facts may dramatically suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco does, they also intentionally obscure the fact that an average cigarette smoker likely takes hundreds to thousands times many more puffs on a daily basis than an average marijuana smoker, so to compare them puff by puff is useless as anything other than trivia.

Some adverse health effects caused by marijuana may occur because THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight off infectious diseases and cancer. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited.16 In other studies, mice exposed to THC or related substances were more likely than unexposed mice to develop bacterial infections and tumors

I certainly can't refute any of that stuff, but that many vague disclaimers and variables, in a study of any kind, is not a good sign as to its accuracy.

I think there's just as much 'junk science' on the side of marijuana opposition, as there is on the medical marijuana side, and a lot of these studies come down to a stoner version of the old 'chicken and the egg' argument. Does smoking marijuana make people unmotivated, careless and prone to poor health, or are unmotivated, careless, people of poor health simply more likely to smoke marijuana? A lot of these studies, including this one, do little to clear up that question, for me at least.

[CU Tiger]

The reason these laws are in place really have nothing to do with people wanting to smoke, etc...

The whole point of the law is to protect the employee from a hazardous work enviorment.

At least in NJ thats why the law was passed

So in the gas pumping vein I guess we need to designate one high school kid to smoke for the entire establishment at each restaurant. We will sacrifice him for the sake of the others. YAY NJ

[CU Tiger]

Try telling that to a family I treated whose daughter became psychotic "only on weed" and committed a serious crime because she was floridly psychotic. It is relatively rare, but it does happen.


I will grant that their are effects and not argue that point. But by your own admission they are rare, again opposed to alcohol which has fairly frequent and consistent side effects.

I'm not saying alcohol should be illegal, to the contrary I think alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, and opiates should all be legal, as should suicide and driving without a seatbelt. If I want to hurt myself why is it anyone else's business. And by the way, if I hurt myself doing one of these activities and can not afford treatment than allowing me to die should likewise be legal.

It is called personal accountability, and is a lost art in this country.


[BTW Noop: watch your friends....I get free legal advice on a pretty consistent basis these days. Could be because my atty has been a great friend for 15 years, or could be that he knows I have pictures of him snorting blow off a hookers chest in Jamacia on a nice spring break.:D]

[JonInMiddleGA]

Thank God for anti-smoking laws

And thankfully I have no need or desire to go to Oregon, so I'll call it even.

[jeff061]

As a result of the recent anti-smoking laws passed in Oregon I can finally go to a Portland bar, relax and enjoy a drink in a smoke-free environment.

...unfortunately I also have to carry a shiv, because the exits/entrances to every bar in the goddamn state is now packed with meandering, smoking drunkards, and once it gets past 6 o'clock on the weekend any busy/populated street is suddenly fucking THUNDERDOME, and venturing anywhere at night invariably involves wading through packs and packs of carousing drunks that have now been forced outside, for my 'convenience'. I'm sure the thought of 'Downtown Portland, Oregon' puts the fear of God into absolutely none of you, but trust me when I say that after dark that shit has turned into a Death Wish movie.

Score another 'win' for big bro!

Great. I'll be in downtown Portland for the next few days. Thanks for setting my standards so high!

[Toddzilla]

FWIW, Virginia just passed a smoking ban that has it right in principle - that bars and restaurants can have separate smoking sections, but they need to be in different rooms with their own ventilation system. Nice in theory - unsure about how it will work.

And I'd never have thought that Virginia, home of Philip Morris, would EVER have a smoking ban, since the Virginia Legislature has basically been bought and paid for by the tobacco lobby for a hundred years.

[thesloppy]

Great. I'll be in downtown Portland for the next few days.

Enjoy your panhandling.

[thesloppy]

Also: in related news, likely because of the smoking ban, Camel has been using Portland as a testbed for it's new nefarious-sounding 'dissolvable tobacco' product.....which sounds particularly delicious AND Orwellian.

[Toddzilla]

Also: in related news, likely because of the smoking ban, Camel has been using Portland as a testbed for it's new nefarious-sounding 'dissolvable tobacco' product.....which sounds particularly delicious AND Orwellian.Good luck with that - PM developed that 15 years ago, tested it extensively in Japan and it was a total failure. Almost a billion dollars of R&D down the crapper.

[Noop]

BTW Noop: watch your friends....I get free legal advice on a pretty consistent basis these days. Could be because my atty has been a great friend for 15 years, or could be that he knows I have pictures of him snorting blow off a hookers chest in Jamacia on a nice spring break.:D

Outside of one incident where I tripped badly on X, they really don't have much to use against me. Nothing that I wouldn't admit to myself to take away what ever leverage they were trying to gain. Thank God I don't have friends who would do that to me.

[Subby]

I'm not a smoker, but I would love for marijuana to be legalized and regulated. The problem with it now is that even if you are just using it occasionally, you still have to buy it from criminals. People get murdered every day as a result of the illegal drug trade. Why support that?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Also: in related news, likely because of the smoking ban, Camel has been using Portland as a testbed for it's new nefarious-sounding 'dissolvable tobacco' product.....which sounds particularly delicious AND Orwellian.

I wonder if their's is anything like Ariva, which I've been using for several years. Tastes about like a really really strong mint, like an Altoids peppermint or something, takes a little getting used to but after that it's golden.

It's not enough of a nicotine kick to be a true replacement but it's definitely gotten me through some air travel & long meetings. They're pretty much indispensable for me now, having kept them on hand for several years.
I try to hoard them since I never know when I'm going to find them (CVS has been my go-to place but they don't always have them in stock) and have feared they would eventually go off the board entirely.

edit to add: Hot damn, thanks to this thread (an unlikely source of helpful info for me you have to admit), I just discovered that they're rolling out a stronger version of Ariva, called Stonewall, nearly triple the nicotine of the original which would fix the only complaint I had with it.
http://www.dissolvabletobacco.com/main-w.html

[Marc Vaughan]

In England many people (especially non-smokers) raved when smoking was made illegal in pubs, bars, restaurants etc. ....

Of course now its pretty much destroyed the traditional English pub because the smokers who used to drink in them now drink alone at home (and those people who go to pubs notice the lovely sweaty smell left by punters which used to be hidden by the aroma of smoke). The pubs which are left (I seem to recall seeing an article indicating that in most areas about 25% have closed on average) are now basically restaurants.

So in one foul swoop this act has destroyed the hub of many communities and meant that neighbours don't meet as easily and get to know each other ...

Yes smoking is bad for your, second hand smoke is undoubtably fairly bad for you BUT ... having a souless impersonal society is worse imho.

PS - No I don't smoke, gave up about 2-3 years ago now.

[Toddzilla]

I don't understand why places just don't allow there to be both "smoking" and "non-smoking" bars and restaurants. Let the public decide - including the employees - where you want to drink or eat or work.

[lungs]

Thankfully I live in a state with a strong tavern league.

Smoking bans should be a municipal decision, not a statewide. A statewide smoking ban would simply be ignored in most of the bars I go to.

[EagleFan]

Fuck smoking. It's a pointless, disghusting and IDIOTIC thing to do. It has ZERO positive side and only harms anyone who does it. There is no reason for it be legal. There is no other product which not only has no benefit but also damages the people who use the product and others around those who use it.

[ISiddiqui]

Does alcohol really have a positive side aside from making its users feel better (ie, same as nicotine)? Cigarettes have direct effect on others, but saying it has zero positives and harms anyone who does it, sounds just like alcohol, no?

[lungs]

Fuck smoking. It's a pointless, disghusting and IDIOTIC thing to do. It has ZERO positive side and only harms anyone who does it. There is no reason for it be legal. There is no other product which not only has no benefit but also damages the people who use the product and others around those who use it.

Fuck smoking? Fuck you.

[Alan T]

Does alcohol really have a positive side aside from making its users feel better (ie, same as nicotine)? Cigarettes have direct effect on others, but saying it has zero positives and harms anyone who does it, sounds just like alcohol, no?

I don't smoke and I don't drink, but there are various reports that drinking wine can help certain parts of someone's health if done in moderation for instance.

As for the smoking vs no smoking... as I said, I don't smoke and considering my wife has a chronic lung condition we would avoid anywhere that did allow smoking. Speaking from a political point of view however, I am tired of the government regulating everything, and do wish they would butt out on this as well and just allow businesses decide whether or not to allow smoking. I then would make it a point to never go to any smoking establishments, but i think it should be their right to do so. As long as something is legal, I don't see why this makes sense (as Radii said previously).

[SteveMax58]

Fuck smoking. It's a pointless, disghusting and IDIOTIC thing to do. It has ZERO positive side and only harms anyone who does it. There is no reason for it be legal. There is no other product which not only has no benefit but also damages the people who use the product and others around those who use it.

As are Bush's Barbecue Baked Beans...but I can't seem to quit those either.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I love how smoking in a bar is now the same as dealing crack while getting blown by a 14 year old.

http://cornerstork.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/crying_baby.jpg

[Honolulu_Blue]

I do a lot of health care work and ever-increasing health care costs are one of employers' largest concerns, especially in a struggling economy like Michigan. These costs continue to go up and up and up...

It's shown that cigarette sales in states that have banned smoking have declined dramatically. The fewer people who smoke or the less people smoke, the healthier they are. The healthier they are, the less business owners have to pay to cover their health care. The less businesses have to pay out for health care, the more they can invest in new jobs, products, etc. I think a healthier population would be attractive to businesses looking to relocate or expand operations. This would, of course, be better for local/state economies.

If it's a statewide ban, people will still go out. I think the number of people who will decided to stay home and smoke will be out weighed or at least easily made up for by the people who be willing to go out more because there is no smoking. Such "hardliners" are on the fringe.

As for the whole "it should be left up to each individual business owner" argument and a smoking ban would infringe on such owners' freedoms, these arguments would actually carry some weight if the government already didn't regulate a vast array public health issues for such businesses.

Restuarant owners aren't allowed to serve rotten food. Restuarant/bar owners need a liquor license to sell alcohol. Even then, they don't have the right to serve anyone under the age of 21. Restaurant/bar owners have to ensure their establishments meet various other public health and fire cod regulations. We've all come to accept these as good things. The smoking ban is the next logical step. Remember, these bans are geared to protecting the health of the employees, not the patrons.

[fantom1979]

Fuck smoking. It's a pointless, disghusting and IDIOTIC thing to do. It has ZERO positive side and only harms anyone who does it. There is no reason for it be legal. There is no other product which not only has no benefit but also damages the people who use the product and others around those who use it.

I am sure parents who have lost their kids to drunk drivers would say the same thing about alcohol.

I am also disgusted that unemployed people can continue to buy McDonalds and Doritos, and when they have a heart attack, my tax dollars gets to pay for their Medicare.

I hereby demand that all alcohol, fast food, cigarettes, and any other product that can hurt yourself or others, immediately be taken off the shelves.....

[Honolulu_Blue]

Surgeon general: No safe level of secondhand smoke





WASHINGTON (AP) -- Separate smoking sections don't cut it: Only smoke-free buildings and public places truly protect nonsmokers from the hazards of breathing in other people's tobacco smoke, says a long-awaited surgeon general's report.
Some 126 million nonsmokers are exposed to secondhand smoke, what U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona repeatedly calls "involuntary smoking" that puts people at increased risk of death from lung cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.

Moreover, there is no risk-free level of exposure to someone else's drifting smoke, declares the report issued Tuesday -- a conclusion sure to fuel already growing efforts at public smoking bans nationwide. Fourteen states have passed what are considered comprehensive smoke-free workplace laws, those that include restaurants and bars.

But the surgeon general is especially concerned about young children who can't escape their parents' addiction in search of cleaner air: Just over one in five children is exposed to secondhand smoke at home, where workplace bans don't reach. Those children are at increased risk of SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome; lung infections such as pneumonia; ear infections; and more severe asthma. (Full story (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/20/parental.smoking.reut/index.html))

"Exposure to secondhand smoke remains an alarming public health hazard," Carmona said. "Nonsmokers need protection through the restriction of smoking in public places and workplaces" -- and by smokers voluntarily not puffing around children.

The report won't surprise doctors. It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke, the most comprehensive federal probe since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986, which declared secondhand smoke a cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers.
Since then, numerous other health agencies have linked to secondhand smoke to heart disease and other illnesses. Earlier this year, California health officials estimated that secondhand smoke kills about 3,400 nonsmoking Americans annually from lung cancer, 46,000 from heart disease, and 430 from SIDS.

The new surgeon general's report doesn't retally the deaths, but it cites that toll.

The tobacco industry and some businesses, particularly restaurant and bar owners concerned about loss of smoking customers, have challenged some of the broadest public smoking bans in cities and states.

The new report gives new scientific ammunition against those challenges, said Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

"There is no longer a scientific controversy that secondhand smoke is a killer," he said. The report "eliminates any excuse from any state or city for taking halfway measures to restrict smoking, or permitting smoking in any indoor workplace."
Among other findings:

Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air and ventilation systems don't eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke.
There is good evidence that comprehensive smoking bans, such as those in New York City and Boston, don't economically hurt the hospitality industry.
Workplace smoking restrictions not only reduce secondhand smoke but also discourage active smoking by employees.
Secondhand smoke can act on the arteries so quickly that even a brief pass through someone else's smoke can endanger people at high risk of heart disease. Don't ever smoke around a sick relative, Carmona advised
Living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker's risk of lung cancer and heart disease by up to 30 percent.
There isn't proof that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, although the evidence is suggestive. California earlier this year cited that link in becoming the first state to declare secondhand smoke a toxic air pollutant.
On the plus side, blood measurements of a nicotine byproduct show that exposure to secondhand smoke has decreased. Levels dropped by 75 percent in adults and 68 percent in children between the early 1990s and 2002. However, not only has children's exposure declined less rapidly, but levels of that byproduct among children are more than twice as high as in nonsmoking adults.

[fantom1979]

U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona has called on American adults who drink alcohol to participate in free screenings to be offered April 8 at more than 5000 sites nationwide. The "Alcohol and Your Health — Where Do You Draw the Line?" screenings are offered free as part of National Alcohol Screening Day.

"National Alcohol Screening Day can help save lives by maximizing the power of prevention. No one wants to hurt themselves or others through drinking, and a free screening provides the opportunity to learn how alcohol affects you — so that you can prevent risks from becoming tragedies," said Dr. Carmona. "Drinking can have unintended and even tragic consequences. In the United Sates, alcohol consumption leads to more than 100,000 deaths each year from alcohol-related injuries and illnesses. As a former paramedic and nurse, and more recently a trauma surgeon and community law enforcement officer, I have seen the results of alcohol use and abuse at close range. I encourage every American who drinks alcohol to take advantage of a free screening to very quickly learn about his or her own risks."


According to a recent Massachusetts General Hospital report, of the 108 million annual visits to U.S. emergency rooms, 7.6 million — three times the previous estimate — are alcohol-related.


"My goal is to prevent alcohol-related traffic crashes from occurring, and to reduce the risk of injury rather than continually treat the consequences," said emergency physician Jeffrey Runge, M.D., Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. "It only takes 5 minutes for a physician to screen for alcohol abuse*, but it can make a lifetime of difference for a patient and save our society nearly $185 billion annually in health and safety costs and productivity losses." NHTSA recently unveiled a new national strategy that focuses on alcohol screening and brief intervention, together with highly visible enforcement and prosecution and DWI courts.


Forty-one percent of traffic crashes, the leading cause of death for Americans through age 34, are alcohol-related, according to NHTSA. In 2002, 17,419 Americans died in alcohol-related traffic crashes; more than 15,000 of these involved a driver or pedestrian with a blood alcohol content of .08 grams per deciliter, the legal limit in 47 states, or higher.


Compared with abstainers, drinkers — especially heavy or excessive drinkers — have higher death rates from injuries, violence, suicide, poisoning, cirrhosis, certain cancers, and possibly hemorrhagic strokes. However, because of alcohol's apparent protective effects in some population subgroups against coronary heart disease, consequences of alcohol use must be evaluated in conjunction with its potential benefits.


Almost 49 percent of U.S. adults abstain from alcohol use or drink fewer than 12 drinks per year. About 22 percent are light or occasional drinkers, and about 29 percent — nearly 3 in 10 U.S. adults — are "risky drinkers" who regularly or occasionally exceed screening guidelines that distinguish persons at heightened risk for the medical disorders alcohol dependence (commonly called alcoholism) and alcohol abuse.


Among risky drinkers are the more than 7 percent of U.S. adults — about 18 million persons — who met diagnostic criteria for alcohol disorders in 2002.** "Drinks may be standard but drinkers are not," according to National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) Director Ting-Kai Li, M.D. "Complicating the effort to distinguish individuals at risk are variations in alcohol metabolism, genetic vulnerability to certain medical conditions, and a host of other individual and lifestyle characteristics. For this reason, anyone who chooses to drink should discuss potential alcohol effects, along with family history and other health concerns, with a health care professional as part of an overall health assessment. Continuing research on the basic mechanisms of alcohol effects will enable all of us to make increasingly informed choices about drinking."


Charles G. Curie, Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration says, "A truthful self-assessment about alcohol use may not be easy, but denial can be devastating or even deadly. NASD allows an individual to obtain a private, personal screening and, if necessary, referral for a full evaluation that will determine whether treatment is needed. Alcohol misuse can cause incredible losses: lost family and friends, lost jobs and opportunities, lost lives. Young and old, employed or in school, everyone can benefit from National Alcohol Screening Day."

[fantom1979]

Surgeon General warns obesity may be more deadly than cigarettes
Lauran Neergaard
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) The nation's obesity epidemic has gotten so bad it soon may overtake tobacco as the leading cause of preventable deaths, the surgeon general said. He called for changes in policies from schools to the fast-food industry to trim Americans' waistlines.

Some 300,000 people a year die from illnesses directly caused or worsened by being overweight. The toll threatens to wipe out progress fighting cancer and heart disease, and could even exceed cigarettes' harm, Surgeon General David Satcher warned.

Some 60 percent of adults are overweight or obese, as are nearly 13 percent of children, rates that have steadily risen over the past decade. The reason isn't a mystery: People eat more calories too often by shunning fruits and vegetables in favor of super-sized junk foods than they work off. But how to solve the problem is vexing, as warning after warning from health officials has gone unheeded.

Satcher said a key is treating obesity not just as a personal responsibility but one shared by the community and industry. He called for a national attack on obesity like the one federal health officials declared on smoking.
Among his recommendations:

• Schools must provide daily physical education for every grade. P.E. has gradually been disappearing, particularly for older students. Just 6 percent of schools require it for high-school seniors.
• Schools must provide healthier food options, and better enforce federal rules restricting students' access to junk food in the vending machines present in most middle and high schools. Agriculture Department rules say school lunches should contain no more than 30 percent fat but the national average is 34 percent, and a recent survey found just 20 percent of high-school lunches provide proper vitamin levels.
• Communities must create safe playgrounds, sidewalks or walking trails, particularly in inner cities. Employers should provide time for workers to get physical activity on the job. After all, healthier workers mean employers' insurance and absenteeism costs will drop.
• Industry should promote healthier food choices, including "reasonable portion sizes."

Ironically, the poor have a tendency to be fattest. Among the reasons, Satcher cited fast food crowding out access to healthier foods in inner cities. He urged communities to study fast-food marketing practices, comparing the situation to tobacco companies' targeting of inner-city minority communities in the 1990s. And he encouraged government-funded attempts to increase the availability of affordable fruits and vegetables.

"Sometimes the most fattening foods are the cheapest," Satcher lamented in an interview.
The National Restaurant Association rejected as "simplistic" the idea that fast-food joints cause obesity, and the National Soft Drink Association urged more focus on Satcher's exercise recommendations, calling vending machines in schools adequately regulated.

Consumer advocates praised the report for finally acknowledging that people's environments can either help or hinder weight loss. But, "talk is cheap," said Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, asking how the government would implement Satcher's recommendations.

The Agriculture Department has targeted childhood obesity as a major concern and will take some action, though just what hasn't been decided, said Ron Vogel of the special nutrition program. Officials are helping schools to improve lunch nutrition. While the USDA has authority to restrict use of vending machines only if they are in cafeterias, it is considering whether to seek broader authority.

As for physical education, the Education Department can't force schools to require it, a decision made locally, said spokesman Dan Langan. But this fall, it did provide $5 million in grants to help 18 school districts begin or expand P.E. classes.

As for overweight Americans, don't get discouraged if a diet doesn't cause as much weight loss as expected, Satcher said. Even losing 10 pounds can reduce someone's risk of getting diabetes or heart disease, as can simply walking 30 minutes a day.

"Every pound counts," he said.

[Noop]

Some of you need to get a gripe, if someone wants to do harm to themselves then so be it. I can understand the smoking in public areas but smoking around other smokers on the roof during lunch is no ones damn business.

[TCY Junkie]

They say if they smoke they poke so this will make things harder. I shrivel up to the size of a pringles container when I see a girl smoking. I wouldn't knowingly do a smoker, am I alone?

[Buccaneer]

One can tout the fact the alcoholism and drug abuse are the same, and I would agree. Right now, however, possession and use of certain drugs are illegal and until such laws are repealed, it is a misdemeanor offense. I am appalled at those that would chose to drink and drive. I wouldn't encourage abusing drugs (esp. illegal ones - they are illegal for a reason) and driving anymore than I would drinking and driving. So instead of having more of both, I would rather have less.

[Eaglesfan27]

One can tout the fact the alcoholism and drug abuse are the same, and I would agree. Right now, however, possession and use of certain drugs are illegal and until such laws are repealed, it is a misdemeanor offense. I am appalled at those that would chose to drink and drive. I wouldn't encourage abusing drugs (esp. illegal ones - they are illegal for a reason) and driving anymore than I would drinking and driving. So instead of having more of both, I would rather have less.


Well said. That is exactly how I feel.

I wouldn't knowingly do a smoker, am I alone?

Nope. My wife smoked before we started dating and I told her that if she wanted to keep me dating me, she would have to stop as I never had dated a smoker previously and I wasn't going to get serious with her if she kept smoking. She said that she had wanted to quit anyway, so I helped her do so.

[ISiddiqui]

One can tout the fact the alcoholism and drug abuse are the same, and I would agree. Right now, however, possession and use of certain drugs are illegal and until such laws are repealed, it is a misdemeanor offense. I am appalled at those that would chose to drink and drive. I wouldn't encourage abusing drugs (esp. illegal ones - they are illegal for a reason) and driving anymore than I would drinking and driving. So instead of having more of both, I would rather have less.

What kind of libertarian are you? :p

What does the drug being wrongly illegal have to do with using it or not? As long as you are careful, and not obviously dumb, of course.

[Lathum]

I do a lot of health care work and ever-increasing health care costs are one of employers' largest concerns, especially in a struggling economy like Michigan. These costs continue to go up and up and up...

It's shown that cigarette sales in states that have banned smoking have declined dramatically. The fewer people who smoke or the less people smoke, the healthier they are. The healthier they are, the less business owners have to pay to cover their health care. The less businesses have to pay out for health care, the more they can invest in new jobs, products, etc. I think a healthier population would be attractive to businesses looking to relocate or expand operations. This would, of course, be better for local/state economies.

If it's a statewide ban, people will still go out. I think the number of people who will decided to stay home and smoke will be out weighed or at least easily made up for by the people who be willing to go out more because there is no smoking. Such "hardliners" are on the fringe.

As for the whole "it should be left up to each individual business owner" argument and a smoking ban would infringe on such owners' freedoms, these arguments would actually carry some weight if the government already didn't regulate a vast array public health issues for such businesses.

Restuarant owners aren't allowed to serve rotten food. Restuarant/bar owners need a liquor license to sell alcohol. Even then, they don't have the right to serve anyone under the age of 21. Restaurant/bar owners have to ensure their establishments meet various other public health and fire cod regulations. We've all come to accept these as good things. The smoking ban is the next logical step. Remember, these bans are geared to protecting the health of the employees, not the patrons.

fantastic post

When they banned smoking in NJ people were besides themselves thinking bars would lose buisness. I was bartending at the time and after an initial small drop off we didn't lose anything.

[Pumpy Tudors]

WOW THIS IS A BRAND NEW INTERNET SHITSTORM

[MizzouCowboy]

I'm a smoker and have for around 24 years. Basically started smoking in high school when I discovered that beer and cigarettes were a perfect match (for me). I have quit smoking for over six months before, and a few times a month or two. As usual, I'll have maybe one or two drinks to many and have "just one" cigarette. Next day i'm at the quik stop buying a pack. BTW, I may average a six pack a month.

Having said that I consider myself a considerate smoker. I'll go out of my way to keep my smoke away from a non-smoker, not that I'm worried that you may die from one sniff of cigarette smoke, it's just that I wouldn't want someone to sit there a fart and expect me to be okay with it.

As far as smoking in a restaurant/bar goes, it doesn't really bother me either way. If a restaurant has smoking section, I'll usually sit in that section. If I am with a friend that doesn't smoke I'll be more than happy to sit in the non smoking section. I can wait 30 minutes or however long it takes to finish the meal. If I feel the urge to grab a smoke, I'll excuse myself and go outside to smoke. I think resturants should have to buy a smoking license just like a liquor license. Both are drugs, both are legal, might as well tax 'em.

I also don't smoke in my home. Haven't for around 10-12 years. Not really any health factors invoved in this decision, I just got tired of repainting the walls every other year. I guess maybe once or twice a year I'll fire one up in my den, usually while watching a really close game. I'll end up regretting it because it makes my den stink absolutely horrible. it's hard to believe how bad cigarettes smell when you are not used to the smell. Smokers really become immune to just how bad they really do stink.

As for marijuanna. Tried that in high school, as I'm sure many if not most people did. Luckily it just wasn't for me. Absolutely hated the feeling, the taste, and the brushing my teeth trying to rid myself of the feeling and taste in my mouth. But it wouldn't bother me one bit if it were made legal. Seems to me the high lasted around 20 minutes or so. I guess that depends on how much you want to smoke, kinda like how much alcohol you want to consume. For me I just don't see the real harm marijuanna does. I've seen people's lives destroyed by alcohol, drunks wanting to fight everyone and anyone, and the physical toll it takes on a person. From what I can tell from marijuanna, it doesn't turn you into a mean 'ol SOB. It seems to make you want to build things. :D

[Izulde]

Having said that I consider myself a considerate smoker. I'll go out of my way to keep my smoke away from a non-smoker, not that I'm worried that you may die from one sniff of cigarette smoke, it's just that I wouldn't want someone to sit there a fart and expect me to be okay with it.

As far as smoking in a restaurant/bar goes, it doesn't really bother me either way. If a restaurant has smoking section, I'll usually sit in that section. If I am with a friend that doesn't smoke I'll be more than happy to sit in the non smoking section. I can wait 30 minutes or however long it takes to finish the meal. If I feel the urge to grab a smoke, I'll excuse myself and go outside to smoke. I think resturants should have to buy a smoking license just like a liquor license. Both are drugs, both are legal, might as well tax 'em.

I also don't smoke in my home.


Except for the smoking license bit, this is pretty much how I am. (though it's an interesting idea).

Oddly enough, with all the no-smoking bans in a lot of the places I've been in recent years, it actually feels strange to smoke inside a building now, so I usually go outside just out of sheer habit.

[Buccaneer]

What kind of libertarian are you? :p



One that wouldn't justify illegal behaviors and to encourage personal responsibilities.

[Lathum]

I think resturants should have to buy a smoking license just like a liquor license. Both are drugs, both are legal, might as well tax 'em.




I doubt that would work

A restaurant makes the majority of their profit from alcohol sales so a liquor license in a must have, smokers add nothing to a restaurant except added expenses and large ones at that.

[MizzouCowboy]

The reason for a smoking license would be to give the owner of the business the right to allow smoking in his establishment, rather than being told that he can't do what he feels is best for his business. If he purchases the license and sales decline beause the business next door is a non-smoking establishment, at least now he can change his business on his terms rather than someone elses.

[Lathum]

The reason for a smoking license would be to give the owner of the business the right to allow smoking in his establishment, rather than being told that he can't do what he feels is best for his business. If he purchases the license and sales decline beause the business next door is a non-smoking establishment, at least now he can change his business on his terms rather than someone elses.

My point is no owner would purchase such license at the risk of driving away their business, adding expenses such as ashtrays, cleaning, and the proper ventilation systems. I would be business suicide.

[RainMaker]

Just sad to see so many people want to tell people what they can and can't do on their own personal property with their consenting adult guests.

[Lathum]

Just sad to see so many people want to tell people what they can and can't do on their own personal property with their consenting adult guests.

I think M Go Blue summed it up well, their are alot of regulations in place, this is just one more.

[RainMaker]

I think M Go Blue summed it up well, their are alot of regulations in place, this is just one more.

Big difference in regulations on things patrons may not be aware of and regulations on things that people are completely aware of. Like I said, it's just sad that we have so many people so worried about telling other people how they can run their business and spend their free time.

[Lathum]

Big difference in regulations on things patrons may not be aware of and regulations on things that people are completely aware of. Like I said, it's just sad that we have so many people so worried about telling other people how they can run their business and spend their free time.

There are alot of board of health regulations that the public would be aware of, for example overall conditions of bathrooms.

[Honolulu_Blue]

U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona has called on American adults who drink alcohol to participate in free screenings to be offered April 8 at more than 5000 sites nationwide. The "Alcohol and Your Health — Where Do You Draw the Line?" screenings are offered free as part of National Alcohol Screening Day.

Surgeon General warns obesity may be more deadly than cigarettes
Lauran Neergaard
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) The nation's obesity epidemic has gotten so bad it soon may overtake tobacco as the leading cause of preventable deaths, the surgeon general said. He called for changes in policies from schools to the fast-food industry to trim Americans' waistlines.

Ah, yes. But there's a key difference, my friend. When I drink my 12 of Labbats in a night (assuming I don't drive or wander around drunk and cause trouble, there are already laws against this), you don't suffer any ill effects.

Same with me shoving Big Macs down my gullet. You're not gaining weight or getting less healthy if you're sitting next to me nibbling on your McSalad.

If I'm sitting next to you at a restaurant and you're smoking and I'm not, I suffer.

Come on. This distinction is as clear as clear gets.

[RainMaker]

Ah, yes. But there's a key difference, my friend. When I drink my 12 of Labbats in a night (assuming I don't drive or wander around drunk and cause trouble, there are already laws against this), you don't suffer any ill effects.

Same with me shoving Big Macs down my gullet. You're not gaining weight or getting less healthy if you're sitting next to me nibbling on your McSalad.

If I'm sitting next to you at a restaurant and you're smoking and I'm not, I suffer.

Come on. This distinction is as clear as clear gets.

You chose to enter a smoking establishment. Choosing to enter a smoking establishment is no different than choosing to eat a Big Mac.

[wade moore]

I'm amazed at the assertions in this thread that non-smoking establishments easily outperform smoking ones. Or that a business wouldn't pay for a smoking license because it would hurt their business.

Uh.. if that was the case, why haven't businesses eliminated smoking on their own? It's a ridiculous argument to say that they're better off without it.

That being said. I love no smoking in restaurants. However - I have serious issues with the bans from a freedom/constitutional/whatever stance. I would prefer for capitalism to have its way.

The city I live in (Williamsburg, VA) has seen an increase in the number of non-smoking establishments open up in recent years. I go to those rather than the ashtrays that are some of the older businesses in town.

If non-smoking is really the way to go here, then the $$$ would do the talking. As others have said - it is your choice to work at or give business to a restaurant that allows smoking. It's simple - if you don't like it, don't go.

[Marc Vaughan]

It's shown that cigarette sales in states that have banned smoking have declined dramatically. The fewer people who smoke or the less people smoke, the healthier they are.
This of course presumes that there are no side effects to giving up smoking.

I personally put on around 2 stone after I gave up smoking and I believe that is a common consequence - obesity being one of the other main health issues at present that obviously isn't ideal.

The other thing which people don't dare to mention is that smokers are generally being kind enough to ease the pension problem by dying off at an earlier age than non-smokers - that means what they might cost in healthcare they at least partially offset on the old age front.

PS - My main beef is that I believe in allowing people to make their own decisions and dealing with the consequences; its only a matter of time imho until alcohol goes the same way smoking has gone (lets face it drinking has VERY limited benefits compared to the risk) and god knows what will be next after that ...

[Apathetic Lurker]

Living in the state of New York which taxes anything in sight, I dread the day smoking is completely banned or made illegal. More new taxes to cover the lost cigarette revenue.

[Marc Vaughan]

Living in the state of New York which taxes anything in sight, I dread the day smoking is completely banned or made illegal. More new taxes to cover the lost cigarette revenue.

Coming from England one of the interesting arguements which has been made is that while there are definite health benefits from people giving up smoking its actually losing the goverment money because:

* Cigarettes in England have ludicrous amounts of tax on them (80+% of the £5/carton cost is tax).
In the UK, the tobacco industry generated over £10bn in tax revenue in 1998, enough to pay for three quarters of the Education and Employment Budget (not sure what it is today but the actual tax levy has risen to above the level in 1998).
* Smokers die earlier than normal people and so save money on pention and health care at old age.
* The added health cost from side effects to smoking is far below the revenue gained from the tax on cigarettes.

Strange but true.

[Young Drachma]

Man, this one went up in smoke fast.

[SackAttack]

fantastic post

When they banned smoking in NJ people were besides themselves thinking bars would lose buisness. I was bartending at the time and after an initial small drop off we didn't lose anything.

So I'm still waiting for you to address the gas attendant issue I brought up, if this is all about public safety.

[Lathum]

So I'm still waiting for you to address the gas attendant issue I brought up, if this is all about public safety.

Not sure what you want me to say.

I don't make the law but it is a fact that the law was made in the interest of the workers saftey

[RainMaker]

Not sure what you want me to say.

I don't make the law but it is a fact that the law was made in the interest of the workers saftey

It had nothing to do with worker's safety, it was just the mantra they had to use. Bartender isn't a dangerous job in this country, especially when compared to many others. If these guys cared about "safety", they'd be targeting the logging, waste management, and mining industries.

This was just a power trip for those who get off on telling other people how they should live their lives.

[SackAttack]

Not sure what you want me to say.

I don't make the law but it is a fact that the law was made in the interest of the workers saftey

Yes, I understand that. So why do the gas station attendants in New Jersey not receive that same solicitousness from the state legislature? Their health is every bit as at-risk in the long-term as folks who work in an environment where cigarette smoke exists.

Understand, I think smoking is one of the most repulsive habits an individual can develop. I detest it. But...if it's worker safety that's at issue here, consistency is necessary, and right now, New Jersey ain't got it.

[Marc Vaughan]

My point is no owner would purchase such license at the risk of driving away their business, adding expenses such as ashtrays, cleaning, and the proper ventilation systems. I would be business suicide.

I know a LOT of pub landlords in England would buy one because their businesses have lost a lot of custom because a lot of people now simply drink and smoke at home instead of in the pub.

You can find a fair bit on the economic effect of smoking bans under wikipedia at:
Smoking ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban)

I haven't seen any research yet which has indicated anything but negative impact for bar/pub businesses, all that happened in England by and large was that pubs are now effectvely restaurants with a small bar area - similar to how most restaurants here in Florida are setup. This caused a 'flooding' in the restaurant scene and in obviously the people willing to eat out hadn't increased so it cannibalised the market for restaurants causing a much harsher operating environement (which is arguably good for customers, but bad for restaurant workers).

All this is just economics and isn't 'bad' in itself - but the way most English communities were setup pubs met a crucial social function of being a meeting place for people rather than somewhere to just eat ... I believe their loss is going to fracture many communities and probably cause substantial social problems going forward.

[SackAttack]

It had nothing to do with worker's safety, it was just the mantra they had to use. Bartender isn't a dangerous job in this country, especially when compared to many others. If these guys cared about "safety", they'd be targeting the logging, waste management, and mining industries.

This was just a power trip for those who get off on telling other people how they should live their lives.

And to follow up, if bartending or being a waitress is "different" than pumping gas for everybody who comes through the filling station on your shift, it's not about worker safety, and RainMaker is closer to the truth here.

[Karlifornia]

Oh no! There were people smoking! And they were drunk! Oh. My. God. The horror!


Either Portland is the worst city in the world, or thesloppy is kind of a pussy.

[Lathum]

I know a LOT of pub landlords in England would buy one because their businesses have lost a lot of custom because a lot of people now simply drink and smoke at home instead of in the pub.

.

People are confusing pubs and restaurants.

If restuarant A allows smoking and restaurant B doesn't, 90% of families will go to restaurant B.

As for economic analysis all I have to go on is I lived through the ban. I bartended on the Jersey Shore when the ban came into effect and business wasn't effected. Smokers still came and drank, went outside and smoked, came back in and drank.

[RainMaker]

People are confusing pubs and restaurants.

If restuarant A allows smoking and restaurant B doesn't, 90% of families will go to restaurant B.

As for economic analysis all I have to go on is I lived through the ban. I bartended on the Jersey Shore when the ban came into effect and business wasn't effected. Smokers still came and drank, went outside and smoked, came back in and drank.

That's just bullshit statistics. If what you say is true, there would be tons of non-smoking restaurants everywhere. People eat at a restaurant because of convenience, food, and price. Not because a restaurant has a small smoking section on the other side of the restauarant.

[Lathum]

Yes, I understand that. So why do the gas station attendants in New Jersey not receive that same solicitousness from the state legislature? Their health is every bit as at-risk in the long-term as folks who work in an environment where cigarette smoke exists.

Understand, I think smoking is one of the most repulsive habits an individual can develop. I detest it. But...if it's worker safety that's at issue here, consistency is necessary, and right now, New Jersey ain't got it.

again, I'm not sure what you are looking for me to say. I have no idea why they don't "protect" gas attendents. All I am stating is the reason the government gave for the ban.

[Lathum]

That's just bullshit statistics. If what you say is true, there would be tons of non-smoking restaurants everywhere.

thats your opinion.

Having worked for years in upper level restaurant managment I have my own opinion on the matter and we will have to agree to disagree

[Marc Vaughan]

People are confusing pubs and restaurants.

If restuarant A allows smoking and restaurant B doesn't, 90% of families will go to restaurant B.
Thats the thing there are VERY few real pubs left in England now the ban is in place - simply put they're all 'pub/restaurants' now because economically being a pub alone isn't viable unless you're situated in an area where a lot of people go out clubbing etc. (ie. large town center).

As for economic analysis all I have to go on is I lived through the ban. I bartended on the Jersey Shore when the ban came into effect and business wasn't effected. Smokers still came and drank, went outside and smoked, came back in and drank.
Some English pubs have tried this approach by putting up Marquee's and suchlike - but in England at least its only partially viable because of our changeable and generally wet weather.

[RainMaker]

thats your opinion.

Having worked for years in upper level restaurant managment I have my own opinion on the matter and we will have to agree to disagree

I'm just pointing out that you're pulling fake numbers out of your ass. We can all do the same thing.

92% of men who enter a smoking establishment gets laid that same night. 72% of cancer patients who eat at a restaurant with a smoking section see their cancer go into remission.

[Lathum]

I'm just pointing out that you're pulling fake numbers out of your ass. We can all do the same thing.

92% of men who enter a smoking establishment gets laid that same night. 72% of cancer patients who eat at a restaurant with a smoking section see their cancer go into remission.

I never said I was basing what I was saying on any particular studies, it's just my opinion.

The whole thing is silly to me. If people want to think legislatures are sitting around scheming ways to prove their control over us I'm not going to try and convice anyone otherwise.

[larnott]

Also: in related news, likely because of the smoking ban, Camel has been using Portland as a testbed for it's new nefarious-sounding 'dissolvable tobacco' product.....which sounds particularly delicious AND Orwellian.

What, Camel Snus? Those have been around for at least two or three years.

I'd love to know what neighborhood of Portland you had this experience in, as I go out at least 3x a week here in Portland and haven't seen anything even close to what you've been describing.

[RendeR]

Lathum, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're hurting your own argument by making bullshit statements like the 90% will go to B thing.

Don't make shit up. It makes you look like a dumbass. and it hurts your argument.

The unfortunate reality is that human society is made up of large numbers of people that think everyone else should do as they do and if you don't they will do anything and everything they can to force you to do so.

Its pathetic that the obvious middle ground can't be reached here. Allow businesses that WANT to allow smoking in their establishments to do so. Require posted notices that warn customers that smoking is allowed there. If they dislike it they will not frequent that establishment.

The government needs to stop trying to protect people from their own stupidity. One of the biggest arguments I hear about smoking is that it costs the taxpayers millions to treat people's illnesses due to smoking.

Simple fix: STOP.

If a persons malady can be proven as a direct result of smoking, then their insurance should not be liable for covering their costs. If people truly WANT to smoke, allow insurance companies to offer "smokers coverage" at what I expect would be an exorbitant price hike over non smokers coverage.

Stop trying to handle this on a society wide blanket response. Allow people to do unto themselves what they wish. Its like a built in population control. Those that choose to do harmful things will not live as long as those who do not.

That would seem to be a win-win for everyone?

[thesloppy]

What, Camel Snus? Those have been around for at least two or three years.

I'd love to know what neighborhood of Portland you had this experience in, as I go out at least 3x a week here in Portland and haven't seen anything even close to what you've been describing.

No, the Snus is something different, the dissolvable tobacco comes in strips and stix, and all sorts of other strange configurations.


...as far as my neighborhood, 15th and Belmont, which certainly does have something to do with it. This area is always bummy as fuck, and there's a bar every 12 feet.

[RainMaker]

I never said I was basing what I was saying on any particular studies, it's just my opinion.

The whole thing is silly to me. If people want to think legislatures are sitting around scheming ways to prove their control over us I'm not going to try and convice anyone otherwise.

Do you really not believe that there are people in government who want to control us? Look at gambling laws. Look at legislation on trans-fat. It's not exactly scheming, but it is people who want to tell everyone what they should and shouldn't do.

[dubb93]

I would love to see a study done on the long term health costs of smokers who die young against the non smokers who live into their 90s. If anyone has a study they can link that is done on this I would appreciate it. My guess is doctors would be the ones most likely to have run across a study like this.

[SteveMax58]

If a persons malady can be proven as a direct result of smoking, then their insurance should not be liable for covering their costs. If people truly WANT to smoke, allow insurance companies to offer "smokers coverage" at what I expect would be an exorbitant price hike over non smokers coverage.


They do this already...at least the companies that I've had anyway.

I don't BS about being a smoker, though. So if I'm paying a premium for health coverage (certainly based upon my own choice), then I would expect to be covered. If I lied and said I am not a smoker, then sure I would not expect to be covered. Capitalism at its best.

Agree with the rest of your post as well. It really isn't a complicated topic to find the right approach. Everybody makes choices...and should not get in an uproar when others do the same. If smoking establishments can't survive, they won't and non-smokers will be fine with that (as will the smokers apparently, as they did not frequent the establishments enough to keep them in business). The reverse is just as valid. Simple, really simple.

[jeff061]

Enjoy your panhandling.

So far I've seen more green peace reps trying to engage me in debate, asking for my money then telling me they don't really care about my money.

Haven't noticed the side effects of the smoking ban, but I haven't gone out after hours yet.

[CU Tiger]

Auggie Smith: Smoking | Live at Gotham | Comedy Central (http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?title=auggie-smith-smoking&videoId=74755)

This is fitting

[RainMaker]

YouTube - Doug Stanhope - This Generation Sucks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n34eeXWjUQ)

[Karlifornia]

I hate going to barbecues. There are always people drinking beer and there's a lot of smoke.

Oh, and I hate the homeless, too. They are terrifying with their, "you got a quarter?" inquisitions.


If you're that bothered by the homeless, smoking, and drunk people....move to a rural area, or just stay home. I'm not saying that they deserve the run the world, but you better learn to live with it, because none of those three things are going away during our lifetimes.

[wade moore]

thats your opinion.

Having worked for years in upper level restaurant managment I have my own opinion on the matter and we will have to agree to disagree

Lathum.. come on, you can't really be this thick-headed.

If 90% would go to the non-smoking restaurant, then every restaurant would be non-smoking. Your argument is just silly.

[Marc Vaughan]

Lathum.. come on, you can't really be this thick-headed.

If 90% would go to the non-smoking restaurant, then every restaurant would be non-smoking. Your argument is just silly.

I think Lathum is correct if the only customers were families with young kids, however I think they're only a small proportion of customers and the exact demographics are obviously skewed upon the type of restaurant involved.

McDonalds for instance has been non-smoking in England for ages far in advance of the ban because its demographic hits young families on the heads, next to no pubs on the other hand were non-smoking because their clientele was older and generally had no children (or at least not inclined to take them into the pub with them).

[SportsDino]

As one of those pansies who coughs at the slightest hint of smoke, and wants to kill whoever invented those 'sweet' smelling cigar/whatevers... this is not something that should be a law. I'll be first to line up for the non-smoking bar/restaurant in town, and all that jazz, but if you ask me a bar should be able to say "yep its smoking here" (no tax/license nonsense either). Assuming they do not sell the stuff, they should be allowed to be neutral (there are laws against underage purchase, so maybe they should have licenses for that which they probably already do).

People need to start exercising their economic muscles. If you don't like smoke in a bar, make a non-smoking bar, only frequent non-smoking bars, create a damn market for non-smoking bars and demand establishments follow your unreasonable preferences if they want your dollars. Quit being whiny sheep damn nabbit!

If they want to make regulations, they should have some form of official announcement mechanism that its a smoking bar (like you have to state it, and post it somewhere visible)... and make it a part of the employment process for those establishments (i.e. you sign a I'm okay with working in a smoking environment). Make the default non-smoking, so places need to put up signs and such to indicate they are smoking.

[DaddyTorgo]

could just outlaw tobacco

*shrugs*

[Apathetic Lurker]

could just outlaw tobacco

*shrugs*


Sure, like that would work......

[CU Tiger]

90%...there is a difference between a society with only yes and no and a society with a mix

[RendeR]

could just outlaw tobacco

*shrugs*


Yes of course, Banning things makes it all work SO much better.

*knocks on DT's head* Hello? BEULLLER....anyone? anyone?

Lets roll back the ol' "freedom of *whatever* ideas, DT has the ultimate solution. If someone dislikes something BAN IT!

Its the 21st century, we should be WAY beyond that idea by now.

[Izulde]

Actually, in some perverse way, I like the idea of smokeasies.

[jeheinz72]

I smoke and frankly, I'd have no problem with high regulations on where I can smoke.

Frankly, the last thing I want to do when enjoying said smoke is to have some non-smoker there yappin' at me. Even moreso if said non-smoker is like anti-smoking.

I typically go out of my way to not smoke in a situation where it may bother someone.

[Apathetic Lurker]

When I was a smoker I went out of my way to accomodate non smokers, even in bars. Until they started sermonizing or being rude about it. Then all bets were off. Smoke rings in thier kisser.

Now the smell disgusts me(been only 6 months) but still crave them something fierce. But I will not under any circumstance tell someone to move or get out of my face because they smoke.

[Marc Vaughan]

Now the smell disgusts me(been only 6 months) but still crave them something fierce. But I will not under any circumstance tell someone to move or get out of my face because they smoke.

I'm fair rare as ex-smokers go, I LOVE the smell of smoke ... if a strange 6'5'' english man starts sniffing around you when you're smoking, don't panic ... its just me enjoying the second hand fumes ;)

[jeheinz72]

Yeah, a snotty attitude about the smoking is guaranteed to be met with more smoke from me, that's for sure.

[Sgran]

It's an interesting debate, and I'm still not sold on either side. On a personal level I'm thrilled that bars are smokeless, but I also see the argument that it's a push down the slippery slope of increased government interference in private affairs (i.e. telling a business owner to ban an otherwise legal activity). I'm stretching to find parallels. How about shooting a gun? Should it be legal to discharge a legal firearm in a bar as long as you don't hit anyone? What if there's a big sign outside that says "WARNING: SHOOTING RANGE"? Not a perfect comparison, I know, but both involve accepted risks. How about banning pets? A dog could run up and bite me. How about shouting? You could impair my hearing over time.

[Easy Mac]

What if there's a big sign outside that says "WARNING: SHOOTING RANGE"?

A: That bar would be on the 11 pm news every night.
B: Greatest redneck bar ever!!!

[Lathum]

A: That bar would be on the 11 pm news every night.
B: Greatest redneck bar ever!!!

It would rival this place


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3068/2674075107_80dfd3949a.jpg?v=0

[Honolulu_Blue]

It's an interesting debate, and I'm still not sold on either side. On a personal level I'm thrilled that bars are smokeless, but I also see the argument that it's a push down the slippery slope of increased government interference in private affairs (i.e. telling a business owner to ban an otherwise legal activity).

The government bans business owners from engaging in dozens upon dozens of "otherwise legal acitivies."

There is nothing illegal about serving rotted meat. I could invite you to my home and serve you three day old pork roast. A restaurant cannot.

Unless you have a liquor license, you, as a business owner, are banned from selling alcohol to anyone, regardless of age.

There are dozens of health code standards that ban restaurants from engaging in otherwise perfectly legal activities in the areas where they prepare food.

The government already bans smoking in airplanes and hospitals, even ones that are privately owned.

There are laws restricting the number of hours physicians can work.

Zoning laws place restrictions on what you can do with your private property. If you open a store as "Business X", despite the fact that you own the land and property, you may be restricted from changing to "Business Y", even if that business is otherwise legal.

There are safety standards for factories that restrict otherwise legal activity, because it may harm the workers in the plant or may lead to a contaminated product.

The fact of the matter is that are many restrictions placed upon business owners. Most of these are in place to protect the health and safetly of that business' employees and customers, which is exactly the aim of anti-smoking laws.

[Lathum]

HB nailed it again.