Are they taking the Smoking Ban too far?
- 13thScorpio
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:17 pm
- Location: Chaotic Evil
Are they taking the Smoking Ban too far?
Came across this in the local paper,and had to find it,but any way,the question, are they taking it too far?
The article in question:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 ... bans_N.htm
I relize it's only in the thought phase,but it seems it would be taking it too far into a persons individual rights.The resturant and bars I kinda get,but this just seems to be pushing it.Your thoughts,opinions,rants what not.
The article in question:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 ... bans_N.htm
I relize it's only in the thought phase,but it seems it would be taking it too far into a persons individual rights.The resturant and bars I kinda get,but this just seems to be pushing it.Your thoughts,opinions,rants what not.
- inflatable dalek
- Posts: 24000
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:15 pm
- Location: Kidderminster UK
I can see why landlords wouldn't want 80 a day smokers in their property, but it's a bugger to enforce surely? Especially if the smoker is careful enough.
REVIISITATION: THE HOLE TRUTH
STARSCREAM GOES TO PIECES IN MY LOOK AT INFILTRATION #6!
PLUS: BUY THE BOOKS!
STARSCREAM GOES TO PIECES IN MY LOOK AT INFILTRATION #6!
PLUS: BUY THE BOOKS!
An excellent idea - but can anyone really stop people smoking in non-public places? Ah, I guess that landlords can say that they prefer non-smokers, but that's as far as I would like to see this taken. As a lifelong anti-smoker, I would support bans all the way if only... if only I didn't have this suspicion that, once smoking is justifiably banned, other personal practices could follow suit.
By which I mean seeing certain foods banned, you at the back!
By which I mean seeing certain foods banned, you at the back!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
- Halfshell
- Posts: 19167
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
- Location: Don't complain to me. I don't care.
- Contact:
Originally posted by inflatable dalek
I can see why landlords wouldn't want 80 a day smokers in their property, but it's a bugger to enforce surely? Especially if the smoker is careful enough.
Relies on vigilant staff / other punters. Depends on how open plan the area is, how far the smell will drift, etc.
- angloconvoy
- Posts: 2793
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 4:00 am
- Location: Ichihara, Japan
Originally posted by Clogs
An excellent idea
Why? Its someone's personal residence. As Denyer said, its a matter for landlords. Also, what's that stuff about there being a percentage of apartments for smokers? So now smokers are being effectively ghettoised? Won't that also make it harder for smokers to give up if they want to?
Oh, and they're already talking about legislating against food with all of the proposed fat taxes.
I'm really not a big fan of goverment interference in personal practices. If you legislate against stupidity we'll all be in jail. Besides, I like my stupidity, its the only thing that keeps me sane after a hard day of pretending to be clever.
-
- Posts: 32206
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 5:00 am
Bah, basically. You rent somewhere, you should be able to do whatever (exlcuding obvious actual crime), and then it's up to you when you move out to sort the place out. And yet, at the same time the government are happy to take the great big slice of tax they get from tobacco (incidentally, I realise the article refers to America) and treat smokers like lepers. I've actually stopped going to the pub now it's gone cold... too freaky the last time, with around fifty people crammed into the beer garden and only three dim student cows sitting in the building, jibbering about how much nicer it was in there now there wasn't any smoke. I wonder how busy the place is tonight, and whether that's got anything to do with the place closing end of this month... Because the bottom line is not a lot of people who care for their health that much go to pubs in the first place.
I'm curious as to what an anti-smoker is, though. Do you go along to a Gallaher factory with a placard, or taunt people you see with a cigarette, or spray-paint the gantries in shops or something?
I'm curious as to what an anti-smoker is, though. Do you go along to a Gallaher factory with a placard, or taunt people you see with a cigarette, or spray-paint the gantries in shops or something?
-
- Posts: 32206
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 5:00 am
The witch-hunt is by far going too far.
I'm not smoking myself, but I dislike the bannings for two main reasons:
1) They still allow smoking itself. It's ridiculous to say "Sure, go ahead, light 'em up." followed by "But don't you DARE do it here or there or anywhere else".
Forbid smoking, if needs be. Or if you have to ban, at least do it sensible and offer alternatives.
2) Till now, most bans on smoking seem to have negative effects for non-smokers.
It's no longer allowed to smoke even in the train stations themselves - so they removed all ash trays.
Effect? Smokers smoke on the way, then the cigarette has to magically disappear - it ends up on the floor, of course.
Some even ignore the ban and smoke all the way. They'd probably have used the ash trays and stopped, once inside.
Someone builds an office building designed to be "non-smoking".
Result? A company rents two floors and allows smoking at certain areas.
Now it often smells because ventilation isn't sufficient, and there are no predefined smokers areas.
All it would have taken was one room per floor, somewhat air tight and window to the outside.
But, no, that would have been a compromise, which isn't acceptable, I guess.
I'm not smoking myself, but I dislike the bannings for two main reasons:
1) They still allow smoking itself. It's ridiculous to say "Sure, go ahead, light 'em up." followed by "But don't you DARE do it here or there or anywhere else".
Forbid smoking, if needs be. Or if you have to ban, at least do it sensible and offer alternatives.
2) Till now, most bans on smoking seem to have negative effects for non-smokers.
It's no longer allowed to smoke even in the train stations themselves - so they removed all ash trays.
Effect? Smokers smoke on the way, then the cigarette has to magically disappear - it ends up on the floor, of course.
Some even ignore the ban and smoke all the way. They'd probably have used the ash trays and stopped, once inside.
Someone builds an office building designed to be "non-smoking".
Result? A company rents two floors and allows smoking at certain areas.
Now it often smells because ventilation isn't sufficient, and there are no predefined smokers areas.
All it would have taken was one room per floor, somewhat air tight and window to the outside.
But, no, that would have been a compromise, which isn't acceptable, I guess.
In a perfect world, this would be a signature. As it stands, it's just the lack of.
Originally posted by Cliffjumper
Bah, basically. You rent somewhere, you should be able to do whatever (exlcuding obvious actual crime), and then it's up to you when you move out to sort the place out.
I disagree, you don't own the place. I believe whoever you rent it from should have the say on can you smoke indoors or not. Especially since smoking traces do not sort out that easily.
Sure, I smoked inside in a flat that was basically non-smoking but I do believe that landlords should be able to prevent that.
Re: Are they taking the Smoking Ban too far?
Originally posted by 13thScorpio
Came across this in the local paper,and had to find it,but any way,the question, are they taking it too far?
The article in question:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 ... bans_N.htm
I relize it's only in the thought phase,but it seems it would be taking it too far into a persons individual rights.The resturant and bars I kinda get,but this just seems to be pushing it.Your thoughts,opinions,rants what not.
Just as a humorous aside, some years ago I came across mention of a study that tobacco smoke adversely affected the duration and intensity of the high that smoking pot causes.
At the time I thought that it may just possibly explain a lot.
Standup Philosopher
"Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball"
"Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball"
- 13thScorpio
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:17 pm
- Location: Chaotic Evil
I can see that too,and enforcement of it would be almost laughable at times.It is hard to stop them if they want to do it.Unless they put camera's in every room of every apartment...which would be privicy violation I think.Originally posted by inflatable dalek
I can see why landlords wouldn't want 80 a day smokers in their property, but it's a bugger to enforce surely? Especially if the smoker is careful enough.
For the bars and pubs,it's just not the same.Ours haven't been affected too much as of yet bussiness wise,but it seems like they should be smokey.Kind of seems like a natural state.Originally posted by Cliffjumper
Also, I was wondering if anyone else has noticed how much pubs smell now they're "airing out"? Granted, cigarrette smoke isn't a lovely smell, but at least it's a smell. Most pubs i've been to since the ban reek of a stomach-churning cocktail of detergent, vomit, stale beer, sweat and urine...
Sounds almost scarier then the smoking bans.Oh, and they're already talking about legislating against food with all of the proposed fat taxes.
*Edited for minor screw ups....
- Vin Ghostal
- Posts: 5972
- Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2000 12:20 am
- Location: Making his summer residence in Alexandria, VA
- Contact:
Originally posted by Cliffjumper
the bottom line is not a lot of people who care for their health that much go to pubs in the first place.
See, that's not true. My wife and I are both former top-level college athletes (she in rugby, myself in soccer) who don't smoke cigarettes. While we are both in top shape and care about our health, we enjoy getting absolutely hammered drunk at bars and clubs, but she's asthmatic and can't breathe when people are smoking cigarettes in a confined area. Personally, I just can't stand the smell of the stuff. We should have a right to go to our favorite bar or club and be able to breathe. Those who smoke can do it outside where it's not going to bother anyone. As a smoker, do you have a right to smoke? Of course. But there's so much evidence that suggests that secondary smoke is very harmful, and thus it's ridiculously unfair and discourteous to expose other people to cigarette smoke, particularly in bars (which are generally smaller, often poorly ventilated spaces).
- inflatable dalek
- Posts: 24000
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:15 pm
- Location: Kidderminster UK
Pubs are great since the ban, I much prefer them. If I were tee total just sitting next to someone having a beer wouldn't affect my own health one bit- them smoking would. So they can **** right off.
REVIISITATION: THE HOLE TRUTH
STARSCREAM GOES TO PIECES IN MY LOOK AT INFILTRATION #6!
PLUS: BUY THE BOOKS!
STARSCREAM GOES TO PIECES IN MY LOOK AT INFILTRATION #6!
PLUS: BUY THE BOOKS!
- PresidentSEARS
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Birmingham, WM, England
- Contact:
Originally posted by inflatable dalek
Pubs are great since the ban, I much prefer them. If I were tee total just sitting next to someone having a beer wouldn't affect my own health one bit- them smoking would. So they can **** right off.
Pub's have become better, but now club's just smell of stale sweat (especially in Brum). And local dives like the flapper have become dull because of the lack of old men.
I wholeheartedly aggree with the smoking ban, but there's nothing like a ciggarette and a pint, and at this time of year it's so cold I'm not going to sit outside so i'll just have to go without both.
I actually agree with Ghostal. People do have the right to breathe and not be poisoned by someone else's habit, imo.
I wasn't really affected when the smoking bans came up here, iirc I wasn't smoking at that time. Afterward it didn't really bother me as I much prefer to smoke outside half the time anyway since I've always viewed it is dicourteous to light up around nonsmokers and have an [probably odd, I know] aversion to secondhand smoke myself. I may smoke indoors, but I usually do it near windows so the air doesn't get thick with smoke.
I wasn't really affected when the smoking bans came up here, iirc I wasn't smoking at that time. Afterward it didn't really bother me as I much prefer to smoke outside half the time anyway since I've always viewed it is dicourteous to light up around nonsmokers and have an [probably odd, I know] aversion to secondhand smoke myself. I may smoke indoors, but I usually do it near windows so the air doesn't get thick with smoke.
This is my signature. My wasted space. My little corner. You can't have it. It's mine. I can write whatever I want. And I have!
- Rodimus Convoy
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:30 am
- Location: Earth, circa 802,701
- Contact:
You know it's really too bad that some smokers had to ruin it for others. If they could pull their collective heads out of their @$$es and say, 'Hey, maybe I can stop smoking for a couple of minutes and respect others' need for fresh air.' the government wouldn't start to feel self-important and need to regulate everything. All you have to have is a little common courtesy. Don't smoke around kids or religious figures, don't smoke in other people's houses unless they offer, don't smoke around large masses of people packed into tiny, poorly-ventilated rooms, simple little things like that. And I understand that some smokers are considerate and they don't smoke in public, and it's sad that a governmental power feels the need to regulate something as insignificant as smoking when they could be devoting time and effort to helping prevent poverty and sickness in their own and other countries.
*takes a deep breath*
O.K. I'm done.
*takes a deep breath*
O.K. I'm done.