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.
There is a difference between indoor air pollution and outdoor air pollution. There are different dangers and contain different particles. The main problem with smoking is the carcinogens in the air. Ambient air pollution deals mainly with ozone and particulates. Rather than directly causing cancer, they are more likely to cause chronic lung disease.
Location: 5 miles from the center of the universe-The Superstition Mountains
1,084 posts, read 5,790,062 times
Reputation: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOYAS
Wow, this debate is a little crazy...
Yes, businesses, office buildings, bars, restaurants, movie theaters, malls, etc, are privately owned buildings. That's beside the point. They are places where the general population works and patronizes. They are not private, in the sense that one's home or auto is private. They are open to the general public, and therefore, are considered public places. People (including non-smokers) should be able to patronize these establishments as well, without fearing that their health is being put at risk. This is quite obvious, and it's difficult for me to understand how anyone can choose to argue against this fact.
Why is it not okay for a business to choose to allow smoking? Why wouldn't the posting of signs warning that smoking is allowed inside suffice? Geez, if you are offended by pornography, do you go to adult bookstores? Of course not. In principle, there is no difference: If a business allows a legal activity you find offensive, take your money elsewhere. How hard is that? There were many, many choices for non-smokers before the ban. If the majority of the population is non-smoking, it stands to reason that more and more businesses would cater to them exclusively without a ban.
The argument was never to allow smoking everywhere, just to leave the decision up to the private citizens who own these businesses. How can that be difficult to understand? How can that be unfair? Approximately 25% of the population smokes and the ban was passed by a little over 50%. So at least 20-25% of non-smoking voters acknowledge that the world doesn't revolve around them.
But lets put all that aside and discuss the reasons behind the smoking ban. Most cited reasons are the ill-affects of second hand smoke on others and air pollution. I can understand people being concerned for their health and wishing to have cleaner air to breathe. Air is something we all need in order to survive, so it makes sense that we should all be responsible for helping to keep our source of oxygen clean.
Concerned? That's seems to be an understatement. I have to find the information of what happens to a person exposed to second hand smoke for even ten minutes. It shocked me how quickly it has physical effects.
I used to be a smoker. Smoked for close to a decade. Three years ago, I quit, and haven't touched a smoke since. I've been on both sides of the fence, so I think I have a unique perspective on the subject of smokers' rights vs. non-smokers' rights, and who is being infringed upon. I understand both sides, but I have to say that non-smokers win hands down. They just do. Smoking affects everyone's health...including non-smokers who are in direct proximity to cigarette smoke, like they would be in bars and restaurants, regardless of the designation of “smoking” and non-smoking” sections. Anyone who tries to dispute this fact, by providing ridiculous statements regarding the fact that non-smokers get lung cancer, too, is just fooling themselves. Of course non-smokers get lung cancer, too. Lung cancer can be caused by many things. That’s not in dispute. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of lung cancer and emphysema are/were smokers. If you don't think cigarette smoke causes health problems, in and of itself, you are sadly, SADLY mistaken.
When I quit smoking, I had insomnia for a month because I was going through a worse withdrawal than heroin addicts go through when they try to quit. I literally felt like I was going crazy from the shakes and lack of sleep...not to mention the incredibly violent dreams, which I later found out are quite common among those trying to quit, due to the nicotine and other toxins being tossed about inside your body. I had excruciating headaches that would last hours and days, when I had never really been a "headache person" before that. For the first few days, I coughed up black mucous and other gobs of grossness, and then I developed a terrible bronchial infection that lasted a couple weeks after that, due to my body purging all the shi* that had been in my system for so long, while being a smoker. This isn't even the beginning of all the crap I went through to purge the sick, disgusting crap from my body that cigarettes put there. For anyone who tries to tell me that cigarettes don't cause health problems, aren't bad for you, aren't hurting anyone, haven't been proven to cause health problems, etc, I say this...bullshi*. I've seen it, lived it, first hand, and I'll say it again - you're SADLY mistaken if you think that you are not hurting anyone (ie those around you, including non-smokers who breathe your second-hand smoke) by smoking.
Now, I'm not saying that smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke in the privacy of their homes or automobiles. Free country, yadda yadda. But, I fully agree with the majority of voters in Arizona deciding to ban this unhealthy, disgusting, smelly, awful habit in places where the general public patronizes, and should be able to do so without fearing for their health (legitimately so), as well as come home smelling like an ashtray, having burning eyes and asthma act up, etc.
So far on this thread, I have not read a single valid, intelligent, legitimate, or logical argument regarding “smokers' rights.” Just sounds like a bunch of whiners who can’t deal with the fact that they have lost this battle, and they should move on.
I've read comparisons between smoking being banned and farting in public...grilling meat in an outdoor grill or in a restaurant kitchen...racism/ethnic segregation...the fact that smoking is a "legal" habit, and people shoul be allowed to smoke in bars as long as the owners agree with it...offices/businesses/bars/restaurants being privately-owned establishments and not public locations...non-smokers "choosing" to patronize bars, so it's their choice to be in a smoking environment...etc etc.
Smoking truly and actually impairs the health of those around the smoker...farting does not. It has much less to do with odor (although that is a legitimate argument, as well), and more to do with the overall health and well-being of the general public being protected. Like someone mentioned before, humans weren't born with a need to smoke. Humans have to fart, and doing so doesn’t cause a true and actual health risk for those around them. Smokers are fully capable of smoking outside or in non-public venues. Yes, it might be a little inconvenient, but such is life. Non-smokers are not capable of guaranteeing that no smoke will enter their personal breathing space, if those around them are smoking in a public establishment. Non-smokers win this argument.
You can basically use the same argument above for the smell of cooking meat (most creative, if not the most ridiculous "argument" I've heard in a while). The smell of cooking meat does not affect the overall health and well-being of the general public, like someone smoking in the next booth over while you're trying to eat your burger will. Duh.
Comparing a smoking ban in restaurants to racial segregation? Are you kidding me?? Wow...I take back my "most ridiculous argument I've heard" designation. This is such an asinine notion, that it's really not even worth disputing. It's just plain silly.
Yes, smoking, in and of itself, is a legal act in which anyone may partake. So is sex. Should people be allowed to have sex on tables in restaurants or bars (or the office, for that matter), as long as the restaurant owner agrees with it? According to your logic, they should. Guns are legal (for most people). Should people be allowed to wave their gun around in bars, as long as the bar owner agrees that it is the patrons' constitutional right to do so. Of course not. While people are allowed to have sex in the privacy of their homes (or cars, or hotels, or whatnot), and people are allowed to own guns, certain acts (such as having sex in bars, or being able to wave guns around in businesses) are not allowed, because they are believed to directly affect the overall well-being, health, and/or safety of the general public. Claiming that smoking is a legal habit is true. Claiming that it should be allowed in places that directly affect the health and well-being of the general public because it is legal for a smoker to choose to infect his body is absurd.
Yes, businesses, office buildings, bars, restaurants, movie theaters, malls, etc, are privately owned buildings. That's beside the point. They are places where the general population works and patronizes. They are not private, in the sense that one's home or auto is private. They are open to the general public, and therefore, are considered public places. People (including non-smokers) should be able to patronize these establishments as well, without fearing that their health is being put at risk. This is quite obvious, and it's difficult for me to understand how anyone can choose to argue against this fact.
Lastly, yes, non-smokers who frequent smoking establishments are on some level choosing to be immersed in smoke. The same can be said for smokers who frequent non-smoking establishments. No one is forcing smokers to go to restaurants or bars that do not allow smoking, if they want to smoke. They can smoke outside, or in their car, or in their homes. Until now, non-smokers rarely had another option, besides staying home altogether, and not being able to enjoy a smoke-free night out at a bar or restaurant. Smokers can easily walk outside to enjoy a smoke.
Like I said, I smoked for close to a decade, and I went to college (ie BARS) in a place where some establishments did not allow smoking. It wasn't a problem. I just went outside, or I (God forbid!) went without a smoke for a little while. Smokers can frequent non-smoking venues, and still engage in their habit outdoors, or hold off for a while. However, non-smokers have been (until now) forced to choose between going out and having a meal/drink and having to breathe second-hand smoke, or not going out at all. The fair compromise is for everyone to be able to enjoy the restaurants/bars, and smokers can still engage in their habit...only outside instead of inside. Everyone wins, in my opinion. Yes, it's a little bit of an inconvenience for smokers, but it's better to inconvenience smokers a bit, than to give non-smokers the "choice" between being totally excluded from being able to patronize smoking bars/restaurants or having to put up with an obvious hazard to their health.
Smokers just need to give it up, plain and simple. Everyone gets it. You're upset. You want to impose your disgusting, unhealthy habit in everyone’s faces, so that you won't be inconvenienced. Well, the voters have won. Despite what other posters have said, that is the BEST thing about our democratic system...majority rules. Awesome. Have a good one....
Do we have an award for "The Best Post Ever"? You should blog this or something. I agree with you 100%!
There is a difference between indoor air pollution and outdoor air pollution. There are different dangers and contain different particles. The main problem with smoking is the carcinogens in the air. Ambient air pollution deals mainly with ozone and particulates. Rather than directly causing cancer, they are more likely to cause chronic lung disease.
Apples and oranges I am afraid. Nice try though.
BTW, I am selling my car...
No apples and oranges about it. Fact is that giving up one's car in favor of promoting cleaner air is too inconvenient for non-smokers and smokers alike. As much as anti-smokers like to scream, yell and gripe about how bad second hand smoke is they are still not willing to concede that they are just as much to blame for bad air quality as smokers. They cannot deal with having to sacrifice something that they have grown to "need." I guess that could put automobile use under the category of an addiction as well as an air pollutant. However, just to clarify my point about auto emissions being just as likely to cause cancer, here's an excerpt from the American Cancer Society...
"Air pollution – mainly from vehicles, industry, and power plants – raises the chances of lung cancer and heart disease in people exposed to it long term, according to a report in the March 6 Journal of the American Medical Association (Vol. 287, No. 9: 1132-1141)...
ACS :: Air Pollution Linked to Deaths From Lung Cancer (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Air_Pollution_Linked_to_Deaths_From_Lung_ Cancer.asp - broken link)
Last edited by Marka; 12-10-2007 at 05:00 AM..
Reason: copyright issues
I used to be a smoker. Smoked for close to a decade. Three years ago, I quit, and haven't touched a smoke since. I've been on both sides of the fence, so I think I have a unique perspective on the subject of smokers' rights vs. non-smokers' rights, and who is being infringed upon. I understand both sides, but I have to say that non-smokers win hands down. They just do. Smoking affects everyone's health...including non-smokers who are in direct proximity to cigarette smoke, like they would be in bars and restaurants, regardless of the designation of “smoking” and non-smoking” sections. Anyone who tries to dispute this fact, by providing ridiculous statements regarding the fact that non-smokers get lung cancer, too, is just fooling themselves. Of course non-smokers get lung cancer, too. Lung cancer can be caused by many things. That’s not in dispute. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of lung cancer and emphysema are/were smokers. If you don't think cigarette smoke causes health problems, in and of itself, you are sadly, SADLY mistaken.
When I quit smoking, I had insomnia for a month because I was going through a worse withdrawal than heroin addicts go through when they try to quit. I literally felt like I was going crazy from the shakes and lack of sleep...not to mention the incredibly violent dreams, which I later found out are quite common among those trying to quit, due to the nicotine and other toxins being tossed about inside your body. I had excruciating headaches that would last hours and days, when I had never really been a "headache person" before that. For the first few days, I coughed up black mucous and other gobs of grossness, and then I developed a terrible bronchial infection that lasted a couple weeks after that, due to my body purging all the shi* that had been in my system for so long, while being a smoker. This isn't even the beginning of all the crap I went through to purge the sick, disgusting crap from my body that cigarettes put there. For anyone who tries to tell me that cigarettes don't cause health problems, aren't bad for you, aren't hurting anyone, haven't been proven to cause health problems, etc, I say this...bullshi*. I've seen it, lived it, first hand, and I'll say it again - you're SADLY mistaken if you think that you are not hurting anyone (ie those around you, including non-smokers who breathe your second-hand smoke) by smoking.
Now, I'm not saying that smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke in the privacy of their homes or automobiles. Free country, yadda yadda. But, I fully agree with the majority of voters in Arizona deciding to ban this unhealthy, disgusting, smelly, awful habit in places where the general public patronizes, and should be able to do so without fearing for their health (legitimately so), as well as come home smelling like an ashtray, having burning eyes and asthma act up, etc.
So far on this thread, I have not read a single valid, intelligent, legitimate, or logical argument regarding “smokers' rights.” Just sounds like a bunch of whiners who can’t deal with the fact that they have lost this battle, and they should move on.
I've read comparisons between smoking being banned and farting in public...grilling meat in an outdoor grill or in a restaurant kitchen...racism/ethnic segregation...the fact that smoking is a "legal" habit, and people shoul be allowed to smoke in bars as long as the owners agree with it...offices/businesses/bars/restaurants being privately-owned establishments and not public locations...non-smokers "choosing" to patronize bars, so it's their choice to be in a smoking environment...etc etc.
Smoking truly and actually impairs the health of those around the smoker...farting does not. It has much less to do with odor (although that is a legitimate argument, as well), and more to do with the overall health and well-being of the general public being protected. Like someone mentioned before, humans weren't born with a need to smoke. Humans have to fart, and doing so doesn’t cause a true and actual health risk for those around them. Smokers are fully capable of smoking outside or in non-public venues. Yes, it might be a little inconvenient, but such is life. Non-smokers are not capable of guaranteeing that no smoke will enter their personal breathing space, if those around them are smoking in a public establishment. Non-smokers win this argument.
You can basically use the same argument above for the smell of cooking meat (most creative, if not the most ridiculous "argument" I've heard in a while). The smell of cooking meat does not affect the overall health and well-being of the general public, like someone smoking in the next booth over while you're trying to eat your burger will. Duh.
Comparing a smoking ban in restaurants to racial segregation? Are you kidding me?? Wow...I take back my "most ridiculous argument I've heard" designation. This is such an asinine notion, that it's really not even worth disputing. It's just plain silly.
Yes, smoking, in and of itself, is a legal act in which anyone may partake. So is sex. Should people be allowed to have sex on tables in restaurants or bars (or the office, for that matter), as long as the restaurant owner agrees with it? According to your logic, they should. Guns are legal (for most people). Should people be allowed to wave their gun around in bars, as long as the bar owner agrees that it is the patrons' constitutional right to do so. Of course not. While people are allowed to have sex in the privacy of their homes (or cars, or hotels, or whatnot), and people are allowed to own guns, certain acts (such as having sex in bars, or being able to wave guns around in businesses) are not allowed, because they are believed to directly affect the overall well-being, health, and/or safety of the general public. Claiming that smoking is a legal habit is true. Claiming that it should be allowed in places that directly affect the health and well-being of the general public because it is legal for a smoker to choose to infect his body is absurd.
Yes, businesses, office buildings, bars, restaurants, movie theaters, malls, etc, are privately owned buildings. That's beside the point. They are places where the general population works and patronizes. They are not private, in the sense that one's home or auto is private. They are open to the general public, and therefore, are considered public places. People (including non-smokers) should be able to patronize these establishments as well, without fearing that their health is being put at risk. This is quite obvious, and it's difficult for me to understand how anyone can choose to argue against this fact.
Lastly, yes, non-smokers who frequent smoking establishments are on some level choosing to be immersed in smoke. The same can be said for smokers who frequent non-smoking establishments. No one is forcing smokers to go to restaurants or bars that do not allow smoking, if they want to smoke. They can smoke outside, or in their car, or in their homes. Until now, non-smokers rarely had another option, besides staying home altogether, and not being able to enjoy a smoke-free night out at a bar or restaurant. Smokers can easily walk outside to enjoy a smoke.
Like I said, I smoked for close to a decade, and I went to college (ie BARS) in a place where some establishments did not allow smoking. It wasn't a problem. I just went outside, or I (God forbid!) went without a smoke for a little while. Smokers can frequent non-smoking venues, and still engage in their habit outdoors, or hold off for a while. However, non-smokers have been (until now) forced to choose between going out and having a meal/drink and having to breathe second-hand smoke, or not going out at all. The fair compromise is for everyone to be able to enjoy the restaurants/bars, and smokers can still engage in their habit...only outside instead of inside. Everyone wins, in my opinion. Yes, it's a little bit of an inconvenience for smokers, but it's better to inconvenience smokers a bit, than to give non-smokers the "choice" between being totally excluded from being able to patronize smoking bars/restaurants or having to put up with an obvious hazard to their health.
Smokers just need to give it up, plain and simple. Everyone gets it. You're upset. You want to impose your disgusting, unhealthy habit in everyone’s faces, so that you won't be inconvenienced. Well, the voters have won. Despite what other posters have said, that is the BEST thing about our democratic system...majority rules. Awesome. Have a good one....
I agree with sablebaby. This is by far the best, most informed, rational post I have read on this forum. Thank you for your enlightened story.
Why is it not okay for a business to choose to allow smoking? Why wouldn't the posting of signs warning that smoking is allowed inside suffice? Geez, if you are offended by pornography, do you go to adult bookstores? Of course not. In principle, there is no difference: If a business allows a legal activity you find offensive, take your money elsewhere. How hard is that? There were many, many choices for non-smokers before the ban. If the majority of the population is non-smoking, it stands to reason that more and more businesses would cater to them exclusively without a ban.
The argument was never to allow smoking everywhere, just to leave the decision up to the private citizens who own these businesses. How can that be difficult to understand? How can that be unfair? Approximately 25% of the population smokes and the ban was passed by a little over 50%. So at least 20-25% of non-smoking voters acknowledge that the world doesn't revolve around them.
I believe that same argument ("leave the decision up to the private citizens who own these businesses") was once used to rationalize business owners excluding customers based on skin color.
Location: 5 miles from the center of the universe-The Superstition Mountains
1,084 posts, read 5,790,062 times
Reputation: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecloebl
I believe that same argument ("leave the decision up to the private citizens who own these businesses") was once used to rationalize business owners excluding customers based on skin color.
Not even close! Did I say non-smokers would barred? Only that with warning signs they would be entering with the knowledge that an activity they were opposed to was allowed on the premises. Comparing a business allowing smoking to forced segregation? Incredible. If anything, the current ban has much more in common with your example than what I said. It is exclusionary, but even it only applies to the activity. At least for now.
I feel sorry for the restaurant and bar owners who have to start enforcing the smoking ban in Arizona today. This is their "worse nightmare!"
All of a sudden, they have to play "cops" and "prison wardens" and follow the rules handed down to them by the "health-nazis!"
They know that they will lose a large percentage of their customer base....but their hands are "tied." They don't have any rights anymore, or the freedom to decide things on their own, concerning their business.
All of sudden, it feels like we live in some Communist country...not the USA anymore. Pretty darn spooky!
Enjoy your hamburgers, steaks, beer, coffee, etc while you can...because at some point, the "puritans" & health-fanatics will start a campaign to change the "contents" of all of our food and beverages.
Enough is never enough for the so-called "purists" and "health-nazis!" Give them an "inch," and they will end up taking a "mile!" Really spooky! Claire
Last edited by Desertlovers; 05-01-2007 at 12:11 PM..
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.
You should blog this or something. I agree with you 100%!
Thank you for your enlightened story.
Not even close! Did I say non-smokers would barred? Only that with warning signs they would be entering with the knowledge that an activity they were opposed to was allowed on the premises. Comparing a business allowing smoking to forced segregation? Incredible. If anything, the current ban has much more in common with your example than what I said. It is exclusionary, but even it only applies to the activity. At least for now.
