Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Mental Health
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-30-2006, 01:34 AM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,286 posts, read 51,833,691 times
Reputation: 23660

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cil View Post
But what about outdoor concerts or sports events?
I've been at outdoor concerts where rude smokers sitting in front of us flouted the rules and lit up, making me feel like a jerk for complaining to them.
In the state of California, smoking isn't allowed in any public venues, which includes outdoor arenas. If they have an outdoor lobby, balcony or walkway, you can usually smoke there... like Shoreline Amphitheatre in Mountain View, where you can smoke inside the gates (the "promenade", which is huge), but not in the seating area. Funny thing, I used to see the Grateful Dead at Shoreline, and people would glare if you lit a cigarette... but the pot smoke was so thick, you could barely see through it. I'd prefer the latter as well, but it still seems ironic!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-30-2006, 06:42 AM
 
Location: in the southwest
13,396 posts, read 44,955,354 times
Reputation: 13599
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
Funny thing, I used to see the Grateful Dead at Shoreline, and people would glare if you lit a cigarette... but the pot smoke was so thick, you could barely see through it. I'd prefer the latter as well, but it still seems ironic!
I've been there (won't say done that ) and I agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2006, 10:43 AM
 
1 posts, read 3,223 times
Reputation: 14
Thumbs down I don't agree


I think this whole smoking ban is just one step closer to communism. This is just the beginning as we are being told this is "for the good of everyone" it is not going to stop there. How many tyrants and dictators have come out and gotten power claiming they are doing something for this very reason? Our country has fought against such dictators and yet now we are on that same path. For the good of everyone we pass this law, for the good of everyone we pass that one. Round and round we go. Before we know it every aspect of our lives is controlled, no choices, no freedoms.

I myself am a light, social smoker who smokes cigars, my husband smokes on a regular basis and yes we are parents also. There was a time when I did not agree w/ smoking but even then I did not want to take away someones right to do that and had no problem with the smoking and non-smoking arrangement. I was raised in Scranton and am an Alumni of West Scranton High where this whole proposal began.

My husband and I do not live in Scranton now, but I still like to go there shopping and to have a nice sit down dinner once in a while. My husband normally has a cigarette or 2 during that time. Now my husband has vowed to avoid Scranton as much as possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2006, 12:16 PM
 
Location: So. Dak.
13,495 posts, read 37,384,632 times
Reputation: 15205
Personally, I don't care if they have smoking bans in restaurants. I would sneak cigs from the time I was little and go back in the trees and smoke to my heart's content. I won't apologize for always liking the taste and smell of a cig. When I was about 45, I started noticing that I would get winded when I did work that demanded a lot of exertion, so I cut my smoking down A LOT. I used to smoke a pack of menthols every day, but for the past 6 years, I only smoke 7 or 8 cigs a day. Everyone told me that I had to stop TOTALLY because in a few months I'd be smoking a pack just like before, but I had made my mind up that I only WANTED a few cigs a day. I can easily go without having a cig in a restaurant and I don't frequent bars so it has no affect on me. BUT there have been some parks and outside areas that have become smoke-free and that is a definite infringement on my rights. I don't smoke in the house or in my car and feel the outdoors should be a place where smokers can smoke. I'm a respectful smoker and walk away from people to have my cig. I don't blow smoke at anyone and I don't leave my butts lay around. I don't go outside businesses and smoke in front of the door out of respect for non-smokers who will be leaving the building. I don't smoke around or near children. I don't get in my car and kill people because I've smoked too much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2006, 02:33 PM
 
234 posts, read 785,503 times
Reputation: 104
Arcanasylvana:

Good letter! I totally agree with what you wrote.

Before long, more and more of our rights will be taken away. Some states and groups are already banning trans-fats in foods, and who knows what will be next? Coffee? Tea? Sugar? Meat? Fireplaces? SUV's? Weed-Eaters, because they make too much noise? It could be anything!!

It's a "slippery slope"....and once we start banning one thing, enough will never be enough for some people.

If people are concerned about the health of children, it's time to start forcing states to do something about non-stop pollution, and the quality of our water today...and poverty too.....because all of our kids will grow up together. Those who have "little" can easily turn to a life of crime, etc. We need to fight for better wages, and force the corporations to bring back the manufacturing jobs, and offer low-cost college tuition, etc. etc.

There is so much to look at, and examine, beyond simply banning smoking in bars and restaurants and saying "I'm done!"

And, there are economic factors to consider when cities and states ban smoking too. The Internet is full of dismal statistics about bars and restaurants who have gone "belly-up" when the smoking ban came to their area, and this affects jobs, and the local economy too. None of it is simply black & white or cut & dry!

I have an "ax to grind" with non-smokers who set a bad role-model for their children. It's one thing to encourage kids not to smoke, but it's something else when parents "bad-mouth" and belittle smokers in front of their young kids. In a way, this is teaching "bigotry" and intolerance and disrespect. I've seen small kids get really cocky and obnoxious towards adults who smoke, and this isn't nice, right or fair at all. Has anyone else ever noticed this?

Thanks for listening and sharing!! Claire in AZ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2006, 07:35 AM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,286 posts, read 51,833,691 times
Reputation: 23660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammie View Post
BUT there have been some parks and outside areas that have become smoke-free and that is a definite infringement on my rights. I don't smoke in the house or in my car and feel the outdoors should be a place where smokers can smoke. I'm a respectful smoker and walk away from people to have my cig. I don't blow smoke at anyone and I don't leave my butts lay around. I don't go outside businesses and smoke in front of the door out of respect for non-smokers who will be leaving the building. I don't smoke around or near children. I don't get in my car and kill people because I've smoked too much.
Amen! I'm also an extremely considerate smoker, and that should be enough... like you, I step away when I smoke, and avoid getting it anywhere near non-smokers. What more do they want?? I guarantee you can't get cancer from me, if I'm standing 20 ft. away in an outdoor space. And here's a real doozy for you - did you know that car insurance companies often charge more for smokers, not because we're distracted, but because we supposedly "have less concern for human life"? A traffic school instructor told me this, and I was really shocked. So I don't care about dying in a car crash, simply because I smoke cigarettes? If they're going that far with it, they might as well charge higher rates for overweight people (which would technically include me, LOL), anyone who drinks occasionally, and so forth. I agree with Arcanasylvana, this is one step closer to communism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2006, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Marshall-Shadeland, Pittsburgh, PA
32,613 posts, read 77,432,847 times
Reputation: 19101
I can take that "slippery slope" argument one step further. If the majority of the nation seems to be opposed to a public smoking ban because it reeks of communism, fascism, and dictatorship as a means of taking away one's civil liberties, then why, at the same time, do a majority of Americans support a ban on same-sex marriage? Isn't that the same basic concept---the government trying to legislate our right to do ourselves wrong? Be honest here, how many of you who are against the smoking ban are also in support of a ban on same-sex marriage? If so, then aren't you all just a bunch of hypocrites then? How can you say "the government should keep its nose out of our personal lives" when it involves spreading carcinogens around, but then turn around completely and rally for statewide bans on same-sex marriages? I'm just not seeing how each ban, in essence, is any different?

If this were the case and the majority of Americans were indeed against politicians trying to "protect us from ourselves", then why is there such widespread outrage over public smoking bans and so little outcry over same-sex marriage bans? Hypocrites, anyone? You can't tell the government to promote legislation only when its "convenient" for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2006, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Marshall-Shadeland, Pittsburgh, PA
32,613 posts, read 77,432,847 times
Reputation: 19101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanasylvana View Post

My husband and I do not live in Scranton now, but I still like to go there shopping and to have a nice sit down dinner once in a while. My husband normally has a cigarette or 2 during that time. Now my husband has vowed to avoid Scranton as much as possible.
Well, my friends and I do live on the outskirts of Scranton now, and we can't wait to head into the city to experience a nice, sit-down dinner without being subject to wafting smoke in the process. I think for each smoker who will be boycotting Scranton's businesses in order to protest the smoking ban, another non-smoker will become more interested in scoping out the city's eateries, which will in essence cancel each other out and make the smoking ban seem like no big deal to the bottom lines of city businesses. Here midway between Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, the 50,000 residents of the Pittston Area have always had a 50/50 option of eating at, per se, Brixx in Scranton or Senunas' in Wilkes-Barre. With this new smoking ban in effect, you'll see the smokers in Pittston fleeing to Wilkes-Barre's establishments and the non-smokers in Pittston flocking to Scranton's establishments. Once again, the ban will have little, if any effect on the amount of dollars being spent in the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2006, 01:49 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,286 posts, read 51,833,691 times
Reputation: 23660
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScrantonWilkesBarre View Post
I can take that "slippery slope" argument one step further. If the majority of the nation seems to be opposed to a public smoking ban because it reeks of communism, fascism, and dictatorship as a means of taking away one's civil liberties, then why, at the same time, do a majority of Americans support a ban on same-sex marriage? Isn't that the same basic concept---the government trying to legislate our right to do ourselves wrong? Be honest here, how many of you who are against the smoking ban are also in support of a ban on same-sex marriage? If so, then aren't you all just a bunch of hypocrites then? How can you say "the government should keep its nose out of our personal lives" when it involves spreading carcinogens around, but then turn around completely and rally for statewide bans on same-sex marriages? I'm just not seeing how each ban, in essence, is any different?

If this were the case and the majority of Americans were indeed against politicians trying to "protect us from ourselves", then why is there such widespread outrage over public smoking bans and so little outcry over same-sex marriage bans? Hypocrites, anyone? You can't tell the government to promote legislation only when its "convenient" for you.
I for one am against the public (total) smoking ban, and also a HUGE supporter of legalizing gay marriage... so while your post did confuse me a little, I don't think I'm part of that hypocrite population. In fact, I even belong to a group for equal marriage rights (EQCA) - and I am a 100% straight woman. Of course I am a long-time San Franciscan, so this shouldn't surprise anyone too much.

Oh, but I think I agree with your main point... there are many hypocrites in these issues, coming from all sides of the debates!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2006, 01:59 PM
 
Location: Marshall-Shadeland, Pittsburgh, PA
32,613 posts, read 77,432,847 times
Reputation: 19101
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
I for one am against the public (total) smoking ban, and also a HUGE supporter of legalizing gay marriage... so while your post did confuse me a little, I don't think I'm part of that hypocrite population. In fact, I even belong to a group for equal marriage rights (EQCA) - and I am a 100% straight woman. Of course I am a long-time San Franciscan, so this shouldn't surprise anyone too much.

Oh, but I think I agree with your main point... there are many hypocrites in these issues, coming from all sides of the debates!
I actually have no beef with people such as yourself who believe strongly one way or the other on an issue. For example, you're against government interference with individual rights in each case, so it shows that you're consistent. On the other hand, I'm in support of a ban on both public smoking, due to its health effects on non-smokers, as well as gay marriage because even though I myself am a gay person, I just don't think this is the right time to be pushing a Liberal agenda at a time when the nation is so heavily-polarized towards left-wing and right-wing, as it could cause MAJOR conflicts. Eventually, I would like to be able to wed the one whom I love, but only when society seemed to open itself up enough to "accept" it.

As such, neither you or I are hypocrites, as you are opposed to both bans and I support both bans. I'm talking about the LARGE population of people in this nation who vouch for a ban on same-sex marriage while saying "That's not fair" when it comes to a smoking ban. THAT'S being a hypocrite, in my eyes.
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:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Mental Health

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:24 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top