Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I'm only quoting this post, but I'll respond to the "in his own room" comment as well. A dorm is not one's private room. One does not own a dorm room. It's a rental.
As to the above, you don't know if the accident wouldn't have happened w/o the smoking ban. That is pure conjecture on your part. Drunks do stupid things.
Katiana, I fully agree that drunks do stupid things, but I've never known any who " broke into the attic and walked on planks to reach the ladder leading to the cupola (and then) climbed through broken Plexiglas to access the roof" to smoke if they could do it in their own room. Particularly when the weather conditions were described as, "the icy slick slate roof." Do you know many students who like doing all that and then crawling out on icy slick slate roofs at night often?
btw... since you mentioned that the studies had been presented here many times, I took a bit of time to look back over the 25 pages. Somehow I wasn't able to find them. Think they might be on the roof? Should I go look? ;>
I completely agree that our studies are equally valid Suzy. The FAA/DOT study I quoted found an average level of 1.4ppm and the study you quoted found average level of 3ppm. Combining the two would give us an average level of about 2.75 ppm. Otsuka however used a room with a level of 6ppm and Giannini used a room with a level of 35ppm. If you believe that 2.75 is equal to 6 or to 35, there's clearly not much more I can say that would make a difference.]
Since you do not understand that the biologic significance of 1.4, 2.25, 2.75, 3, and 6 is all the same (we can ignore the "much smokier" 30 or 35, if you wish), there is no use trying to explain it to you any more. Come back when you have taken some physiology courses.
Quote:
I will say however that you did some EXCELLENT research showing that there's no need for a law regarding hotel bans. The articles you quoted show that there's quite a strong awareness in the industry as to guests' preferences and obviously any decently run hotel or chain will take such preferences into account.
If you were to get bans reversed, you still would find it hard to find a hotel to smoke in. So the bans serve a purpose. They make it easier for hotels to do what is good for business.
Quote:
Shall we now move on from Otsuka et al? Or would you, as your last post below indicates, rather concede on the scientific base of the need for hotel bans altogether and simply go with the not liking the smell thing? I don't usually argue with the latter: I may consider it intolerant, or, in the case of extremes, neurotic, but it's not something I argue with.
No, because Otsuka showed exposure of non-smokers to cigarette smoke is not good for the heart. I have shown that it is impossible to avoid cigarette smoke in a hotel that allows smoking, a fact that is supported by simple observation. You do not have to even do a study to show it.
And your insistence that is all right to smoke around other people because all it does is smell bad might be considered intolerant, too.
Katiana, I fully agree that drunks do stupid things, but I've never known any who " broke into the attic and walked on planks to reach the ladder leading to the cupola (and then) climbed through broken Plexiglas to access the roof" to smoke if they could do it in their own room. Particularly when the weather conditions were described as, "the icy slick slate roof." Do you know many students who like doing all that and then crawling out on icy slick slate roofs at night often?
btw... since you mentioned that the studies had been presented here many times, I took a bit of time to look back over the 25 pages. Somehow I wasn't able to find them. Think they might be on the roof? Should I go look? ;>
Do you not think the sane thing to do would be to walk down stairs (or take the elevator) and go to the designated smoking area to smoke? This has nothing to do with smoking bans. It has everything to do with the fact that kids that age tend to think they are immortal.
It's kids doing stupid things.
When you start reaching for situations like this to push your agenda that bans are bad, it does nothing for your credibility.
Since you do not understand that the biologic significance of 1.4, 2.25, 2.75, 3, and 6 is all the same (we can ignore the "much smokier" 30 or 35, if you wish), there is no use trying to explain it to you any more. Come back when you have taken some physiology courses.
You'd be fun to play drinking games with Suzy! I could drink 1.4 shots of straight grain alcohol, and you could drink 35 shots, and then we could climb out on an icy slick slate roof at night and discuss the biologic significance of what was currently happening to our physiologies!
Quote:
And your insistence that is all right to smoke around other people because all it does is smell bad might be considered intolerant, too.
Actually, I never insist upon smoking around other people who are bothered by the smell Suzy. Even if they've drunk two quarts of cheap vodka and are ice-skating under the stars...
As Katiana pointed out: if it serves the public, it is a public place.
Interesting. I was looking to see just where I started interacting here, and back in the 500s I found the above from you Suzy, in the middle of a discussion that included claims that there was no "slippery slope" in these bans.
And yet, just earlier today, Katiana (I'm assuming it's the same Katiana who supplied the above definition.) wrote:
"I'm only quoting this post, but I'll respond to the "in his own room" comment as well. A dorm is not one's private room. One does not own a dorm room. It's a rental."
So a rented room becomes a public place where smoking should be banned by law? Somehow this sounds like the slippery slope to *me* ... am I missing something?
Interesting. I was looking to see just where I started interacting here, and back in the 500s I found the above from you Suzy, in the middle of a discussion that included claims that there was no "slippery slope" in these bans.
And yet, just earlier today, Katiana (I'm assuming it's the same Katiana who supplied the above definition.) wrote:
"I'm only quoting this post, but I'll respond to the "in his own room" comment as well. A dorm is not one's private room. One does not own a dorm room. It's a rental."
So a rented room becomes a public place where smoking should be banned by law? Somehow this sounds like the slippery slope to *me* ... am I missing something?
Yes, you're missing what the concept of a dorm room IS. It's a room owned by a college or univeristy, that a student rents out short term. It is not the student's own privately owned space. I don't know if you ever lived in a dorm; I did and my kids did. They had lots of rules, not just about smoking, but about who could be in your room and when, what kind of items you could keep in the room (no halogen lamps, no pets) and what you could drink, e.g. in all the cases I am referring to, no alcohol. I think you should worry less about the "slippery slope" and keep to the issues at hand.
Yes, you're missing what the concept of a dorm room IS. It's a room owned by a college or univeristy, that a student rents out short term. It is not the student's own privately owned space. I don't know if you ever lived in a dorm; I did and my kids did. They had lots of rules, not just about smoking, but about who could be in your room and when, what kind of items you could keep in the room (no halogen lamps, no pets) and what you could drink, e.g. in all the cases I am referring to, no alcohol. I think you should worry less about the "slippery slope" and keep to the issues at hand.
Katiana, while I oppose campus bans, I recognize and accept the right of the college, as a private landlord, to impose them. However I think students should resist them as part of drawing the line on where landlords should be able to regulate the private lives of their tenants within rented properties, particularly if the landlords base such regulation upon false premises (such as imposing bans based upon non-existent studies that people seem to believe exist, almost as a religious tenet, but are always unable to produce: I've posed the request on at least a hundred different boards around the net). As far as legislated bans in apartments, hotels, and dorm rooms, I do of course totally oppose such things, and on a similar basis.
There is no right to smoke, anywhere, any time! This is what we should all keep in mind.
Smoking in a dorm room could wreck the room for the next student, who may not be a smoker. You can say, the university should reserve certain rooms just for smokers, choice, freedom, blah, blah; the fact of the matter is, at most colleges there aren't enough dorm rooms and to tie up a certain number for smokers is ridiculous.
Smoking in a dorm room could wreck the room for the next student, who may not be a smoker.
Now you're simply being silly Katiana. Didn't you read my piece below about the antismoking fanatic enjoying the "pure clean air" in his 1964 hotel room? How many hotel rooms in 1964 were designated permanently no-smoking do you think?
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Slip-slidin' away...
