U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: Are You in Favor of a Statewide Public Smoking Ban?
Yes 83 62.41%
No 46 34.59%
I'm Not Sure 3 2.26%
I Don't Care 1 0.75%
Voters: 133. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-22-2008, 07:22 PM
 
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
19 posts, read 41,800 times
Reputation: 16
Thumbs up Bring On The Ban!

You can find old adverts, TV spots, movie leaders, and print, at the Prelinger Archives.

I wonder how many of the old smoking advocates or representatives (like the Marlboro Man) have died of smoking related disease?


So, getting back on topic, when will this ban take place? I can't WAIT to be able to go to a whole new set of restaraunts, bars, nightclubs without being 'poisoned.'

I have noticed that a number of places are already going smoke-free in anticipation of the law. In Lancaster, for example, smoking is prohibited at Lancaster Brewing Company AND the newly opened Iron Hill Brewery.

HURRAH!!!

Oh, an aside, did you know that the Kent "Micronite Filter" used asbestos in it? (WHOOPS!)

Some Prelinger links:

You Just Can't Beat A Lucky Strike!

Old Winston Commercials

Tobacco and the Human Body

Newport Cigarette Commercial #7

Up In Smoke

Lucky Strike Cigarette Commercial: Marching Cigarettes

Newport Cigarette Commercial #1

and MANY more

Last edited by Friendly_Guy; 01-22-2008 at 07:39 PM.. Reason: Added links from Prelinger
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-22-2008, 08:51 PM
 
353 posts, read 553,236 times
Reputation: 79
No... I don't think that the state should be telling people that they can't allow smoking in their establishments. Nor do I think it should be the the governments business to tell people what they can do in their own cars, or to their own health. And nor, do I think the problem is huge enough to disallow it on the streets.

Is it really that big of a bother to you that you are willing to tell someone else "don't do that" and make it legal?

And will we are on the topic (and this doesn't apply to everyone, so don't jump down my neck) why is it that so many of these people who are averse to tobacco smoking also support the legalization of pot smoking? I know why... its not the cigarettes they really hate, its "the corporations".

I love how some people think that cigarette smoking is so oppressive that when they move ot a place that doesn't allow it they feel "liberated". Like a boot has been lifted from their neck. Come now... seriously?

"Oh, but they are smelly." If people want to smell then let them.

I hate to use a trite phrase, but Smoking is a Lot Healthier Than Fascism. I hardly think that the public good is really THAT in threat when someone walking down the street lights up.

Hell, the emissions for the bazillion cars on the road are doing a million times more damage to your health. It's all in your mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2008, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
19 posts, read 41,800 times
Reputation: 16
I do not support the use or legalization of pot.
Smoking is a severe health hazard to anyone who is in the presence of the smoke. If I own a business, should I be permitted to allow the use of opium and crack in the building with no repercussions? Maybe I can use my Weber barbecue in the building - what's a little carbon monoxide between friends? Re: Brazilian cars and health, please take a look at post #51. Also, cars usually don't idle inside public buildings.

The comment about fascism is completely non-sequitar. This isn't a comparison, and Musollini isn't here.

Last edited by Friendly_Guy; 01-22-2008 at 09:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2008, 09:21 PM
 
353 posts, read 553,236 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friendly_Guy View Post
I do not support the use or legalization of pot.
Smoking is a severe health hazard to anyone who is in the presence of the smoke. If I own a business, should I be permitted to allow the use of opium and crack in the building with no repercussions? Maybe I can use my Weber barbecue in the building - what's a little carbon monoxide between friends? Re: Brazilian cars and health, please take a look at post #51. Also, cars usually don't idle inside public buildings.

The comment about fascism is completely non-sequitar. This isn't a comparison, and Musollini isn't here.
Please excuse the fact that I had a total "street corner hobo" moment, but this is one of those issues that I just think is so needlessly important and... well, I'll stop there.

Anyway, the examples you provided don't have relevance for the following reasons:

1) Opium and crack are already illegal. And you can't compare crack to smoking tobacco, those are two totally different ballgames.

If you smoke crack, you are 100% likely to get a habit. I do smoke tobacco, but only sparingly and I have never become "addicted" to it. I know many people who only smoke socially, and they don't become addicted. Addiction on the whole actually has less to do with the object itself, in many cases than it does with the person's personality... its a type of OCD. Substances that can cause addiction (caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, etc), but actually do very little to body and brain chemistry mostly rely on this personality addiction.

Smoking tobacco does not mean you will get addicted, in other words. In fact, even smoking pot is no guarantee of addiction, which is part of the reason I support full legalization of that substance as well... scare tactics like the movie "Reefer Madness" not withstanding. However, hard drugs do to your body is far more extensive and causes effects that are much farther reaching.

2) The Weber example is bad, because all the buildings that have indoor grilling (and there are some) are also required to have ventilation. Besides... no one would go to a place where black smoke was literally spewing onto them.

Post #51 is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

As for my comment on fascism, its not a non-sequester at all. Fascism is extreme regulation of the person's or people's personal behavior, which is what I think this is. Next they are going to say that you can't drink... you can't smoke in your own home... etc. There is a line that we can draw on regulating people's behavior that makes sense, I just think this falls on the wrong side of that line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2008, 07:37 PM
 
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
19 posts, read 41,800 times
Reputation: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by supersoulty View Post
2) The Weber example is bad, because all the buildings that have indoor grilling (and there are some) are also required to have ventilation. Besides... no one would go to a place where black smoke was literally spewing onto them.
Barbecues don't spew black smoke. In fact, once burning, there is no smoke until cooking.. Cancer sticks spew visible smoke, and many non-smokers do not go to a place where cancerous smoke envelopes them...

Quote:
Originally Posted by supersoulty View Post
Post #51 is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Why, because the cars being discussed are not Brazilian?! LOL


Quote:
Originally Posted by supersoulty View Post
As for my comment on fascism, its not a non-sequester at all. Fascism is extreme regulation of the person's or people's personal behavior, which is what I think this is. Next they are going to say that you can't drink... you can't smoke in your own home... etc. There is a line that we can draw on regulating people's behavior that makes sense, I just think this falls on the wrong side of that line.
Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Elected officials enacting laws based upon known health threats is far from fascism. No matter how you view this, smokers are a minority, and the non-smoking population does not wish to be exposed to their noxious discharge. Every other 'example' is separate from this, and must be evaluated separately. Motor vehicle exhaust has no bearing on smoking regulations.

If you are unhappy about this, you have the exact same number of votes as all other citizens. Vote for officials that support your views. This is called democracy. If you do not care for how it is enacted, please feel free to relocate to a freer society. There is no fascist state holding you here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2008, 08:21 PM
 
3 posts, read 44,721 times
Reputation: 13
I do not think there should be any public law banning smoking in privately owned bars or restaurants. That decision should be left up to the owner. Everyone one knows the dangers of cigarette smoke, if you dont smoke, dont go in. You have that choise! The only thing that should be required if smoking is permitted is that it be posted on the entrance. I dont smoke, so I turn around and leave when there is. That is my choise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2008, 11:35 PM
 
353 posts, read 553,236 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friendly_Guy View Post
Barbecues don't spew black smoke. In fact, once burning, there is no smoke until cooking.. Cancer sticks spew visible smoke, and many non-smokers do not go to a place where cancerous smoke envelopes them...
And I think we can assume that, if it is a restaurant that there will quite often times be meat cooking, and thus causing smoke. But while we are on the subject, grilled meat contains carcinogens, lots of them. So why not ban both the cooking of grilled meat (which causes cancer causing smoke) and the consumption of it (which causes other forms of cancer) outright?

As for your last sentence, you just proved my point, thanks. People who don't want to be around smoking can just not go to a place that allows it.


Quote:
Why, because the cars being discussed are not Brazilian?! LOL
Actually, yes. In Brazil all cars are fueled completely by ethanol, which produces far less heath risks than fossil fuel. Different conditions means different outcomes. Regardless, your argument hinges on the idea that "smoking can damage ones health, ergo ban it" my point is that, in that case, you should be for banning all manner of things, including fossil fuel. Let's make a law that says you can't burn anything that might produce a harmful byproduct... that's really gonna narrow the list of burnable things down.

Quote:
Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Again, you failed to disprove my point.

Quote:
Elected officials enacting laws based upon known health threats is far from fascism. No matter how you view this, smokers are a minority, and the non-smoking population does not wish to be exposed to their noxious discharge. Every other 'example' is separate from this, and must be evaluated separately. Motor vehicle exhaust has no bearing on smoking regulations.
You mean like your Brazilian example? So should we place bans on what kinda music people can listen to, because not everyone likes it? Or how many piercings someone can have? How about a ban on eating red meat, which has been proven to be very hazardous to your health in large doses. I'm sure that the non-whiny baby population hates having to listen to a little kid cry... so lets ban children in public places... or, while we are getting the government involved, lets put huge taxes on reproduction the way they put huge taxes on tobacco, because no matter what we are saying out of one corner of our mouths, we should take any chance we can to make a profit, right?

If you think that what I am saying is ridiculous, maybe you should examine your position a little closer. Bottom line, the government should not make laws purely based on the slight inconvenience of any group, no matter how big. The Founders were just as afraid of the tyranny of the majority as they were the tyranny of the minority, and this is why.

Also, nice how you totally ignored my whole point about these "addictions" really being a form of OCD more than anything else. It is a very important point in all this, especially when one considers that one of the main arguments people have made for years is that the cigarettes themselves are actually highly addictive.

Quote:
If you are unhappy about this, you have the exact same number of votes as all other citizens. Vote for officials that support your views. This is called democracy. If you do not care for how it is enacted, please feel free to relocate to a freer society. There is no fascist state holding you here.
If I am unhappy about this, I'll point to the Constitution which grants me liberties as a United States citizen. "Democracy" doesn't legitimize a damn thing. You can have 99% of the vote... that doesn't make it right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2008, 12:10 AM
 
353 posts, read 553,236 times
Reputation: 79
BTW... I fail to see why it is that you assume people are completely unaware of the dangers of excessive smoking. Is it because you also assume that, if people knew then they would never do it? People do things everyday that they no are unhealthy or potentially dangerous, and yet they continue to do them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2008, 12:23 AM
 
353 posts, read 553,236 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWB View Post
Try 10,000. PA is far behind the rest of the Northeast in many progressive issues. I think Maine might be the only state we're on an even keel with in this regard, and that's sad considering we have the second-highest population in the Northeast while they have amongst the lowest.
You say that as though simply being "progressive" is a virtue in and of itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2008, 03:55 AM
 
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
19 posts, read 41,800 times
Reputation: 16
Supersoulty,

Your claims that this is fascism are churlish. Furthermore, your 'demands' that everything else be banned is, in MY opinion an attempt to detract from the issue. The topic at hand is smoking and a statewide smoking ban. One cannot isolate 3 words that are a part of an entire definition. Our Government is not a dictatorshipas the upcoming elections prove. If this were a fascist government, vocal opponents such as yourself would face "suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." You are not being censored, you are permitted to post and preach your opinions freely. No need to fear authorities breaking down your door at night and dragging you to death camps for your beliefs. No, this is not fascism.

Concerning OCD rather than addiction, yes, I am quite certain that your medical opinion is far superior to all of the studies made by various organizations that show smoking to be addictive. But, again, this is not the topic at hand.

The bottom line is that the ban is coming, so prepare for it. If you do not like it, do whatever you feel is appropriate. Enact civil disobedience rallies and go to jail for your beliefs to raise public consciousness once enacted if you feel strongly enough.

If and when you contract a disease that is known to be associated with smoking (and I hope that you never do,) at least be honest enough with yourself to admit that your habit (or your psychological disorder; OCD) was the reason for it.

I do not think that I can constructively add anything else to this thread. It's a shame that the smokers cannot accept the changes that are coming. When slavery was abolished there were equally outraged individuals, but that did not stop the change. No, that has nothing to do with the matter at hand, I agree, except for the fact that it was, undoubtedly to many slave owners, "stringent socioeconomic controls."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top