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.
All I can say is....when I had a "smoking room" at a hotel, it smelled SOOOOO strong of smoke in the walls, carpet, drapes, bed, etc. It smelled as if you took a full ash tray and held it 1/8 inch from your nose. This smell was so strong it could knock you over when you opened the door to the room. I never smelled a home, or apartment, or any public establishment that was even remotely close to the strong smell in that hotel room. I don't know if it is because the hotel room is small or because folks puffed and puffed away in it. But it was horrendous. And it was not the odor that I was worried about, but the poison that was causing the odor.
I actually never went back to that hotel chain, ever again. Not just that location, but all locations.
That's the point. You or anyone one else is free to go elsewhere.
Quote:
As far as the folks saying their kids didn't die from third hand smoke. Smoking and related 2nd and 3rd hand smoke doesn't kill you on the spot...or 10 years later. It accumulates over many years. Even then, there is not a 100 percent chance that it will kill you. However, the more you are exposed to the smoking, and the older you get, statistically, you just might have health issues that are directly related to smoking. But you can die from it.
The 2nd hand smoke argument/studies is/are iffy at best, and the 3rd is just bizarre. You are exposed to more cancer causing chemicals/odors -- and in greater amounts -- especially if you live in the city -- than that caused by next generation smoke.
And actually, I have seen some credible stats that indicate even those who smoke less than half a pack of cigarettes a day do not have a really statistical significantly greater risk of cancer than does a non-smoker. Whether this is true or not, I don't know...but the studies are out there for anyone who wants to look at them.
Quote:
I have had THREE relatives die of lung cancer, all from smoking. All were between the ages of 46-62. All were in otherwise good health other than smoking and getting lung cancer. It's sad to see someone get diagnosed with it, then suffer greatly and wish they could turn back the clock and never have smoked. Then to watch them suffer, deteriorate and die. It doesn't happen to all smokers, but it DOES happen to some of them. One of my relatives commented that she didn't think it would happen to her. It did. I still miss her. She was beautiful and smart and funny and kind and caring. But she smoked a lot and she died of lung cancer.
Yes, we all know of sad stories like that. But the point you and some others consistently seem to miss is this is not about "smokers rights" or that it is not harmful. Many of us here have quit and are glad we did. It is about private property rights
Quote:
Yes, I wish smoking was illegal. .
And I wish forest fires didn't happen, but they do and you can't outlaw them, nor even control them. Yes, I realize you might think this is a mis-placed analogy. But in a way, it really isn't. Remember some years back when those wild-fires were out of control in National Parks? The reason was that, for many years, the policy of the Forest Service was to stop them when they started (usually by lightning strikes), rather than just keep them controlled and let nature take its course. Eventually, the inevitable happened. The deadwood and pine cones and leaves and etc accumulated to the point a fire eventually erupted that quickly got totally out of control. The consequence was much worse than what would have happened otherwise.
Point being, tobacco too is a product of nature. As long as it grows, people will figure out a way to inhale it. If it is made illegal? Great. All that will happen is to create a new black-market where organized crime will profit...plus make technical criminals out of otherwise law-abiding people who choose to buy the product.
Hell, it might even be different if there had never been such a history lesson available as The Prohibition Era! But as mentioned earlier, seems like some people never get it and every few generations certain things have to be re-learned by bitter experience.
Quote:
And I think everyone that smokes is dumb for doing it. No debate or argument is ever gonna sway me. It pains me to see anyone smoking, knowing that what happened to my relatives can easily happen to any smoker. It's a long term game of Russian roulette that some fools choose to play. And they stink and they look stupid smoking. Fools, each and every smoker, IMO. Bigger fools if they have kids, because those kids will suffer greatly in the future if their parent dies from smoking.
Great. Your heart is in the right place. But why not leave it up to the individual to make that decision, and the business owner to decide whether or not to allow it on their own property!
It pratically already is. As I mentioned earlier, the taxes are so huge you could consider them to be not so different from fines.
Should we outlaw alcohol as well? Alcoholism destroys families and drunk driving causes countless fatalities and injuries.
If you drink, I don't have to drink behind you. I'm not so lucky when you smoke.
I think you should be allowed to smoke anywhere you wish, whatever you wish, as much as you wish, with the stipulation that as soon as you light up you start inhaling, but that you should never be allowed to exhale.
That's the only way I see that smokers and nonsmokers can live together. In the meantime, I think I'll make plans to vacation in Wisconsin this year.
Yes, I think. If you don't like the smell of a hotel room, go somewhere else.
I really don't understand this reasoning. It's OK for a smoker to stink the place up, and someone who doesn't do that can just go somewhere else? It seems the burden should be on the smoker to not smoke, just like you don't litter, etc.
That's the point. You or anyone one else is free to go elsewhere.
The 2nd hand smoke argument/studies is/are iffy at best, and the 3rd is just bizarre. You are exposed to more cancer causing chemicals/odors -- and in greater amounts -- especially if you live in the city -- than that caused by next generation smoke.
And actually, I have seen some credible stats that indicate even those who smoke less than half a pack of cigarettes a day do not have a really statistical significantly greater risk of cancer than does a non-smoker. Whether this is true or not, I don't know...but the studies are out there for anyone who wants to look at them.
Yes, we all know of sad stories like that. But the point you and some others consistently seem to miss is this is not about "smokers rights" or that it is not harmful. Many of us here have quit and are glad we did. It is about private property rights
And I wish forest fires didn't happen, but they do and you can't outlaw them, nor even control them. Yes, I realize you might think this is a mis-placed analogy. But in a way, it really isn't. Remember some years back when those wild-fires were out of control in National Parks? The reason was that, for many years, the policy of the Forest Service was to stop them when they started (usually by lightning strikes), rather than just keep them controlled and let nature take its course. Eventually, the inevitable happened. The deadwood and pine cones and leaves and etc accumulated to the point a fire eventually erupted that quickly got totally out of control. The consequence was much worse than what would have happened otherwise.
Point being, tobacco too is a product of nature. As long as it grows, people will figure out a way to inhale it. If it is made illegal? Great. All that will happen is to create a new black-market where organized crime will profit...plus make technical criminals out of otherwise law-abiding people who choose to buy the product.
Hell, it might even be different if there had never been such a history lesson available as The Prohibition Era! But as mentioned earlier, seems like some people never get it and every few generations certain things have to be re-learned by bitter experience.
Great. Your heart is in the right place. But why not leave it up to the individual to make that decision, and the business owner to decide whether or not to allow it on their own property!
....and they have decided that THEY have the right to tell ya to take your business elsewhere? So what is the controversy?
If you drink, I don't have to drink behind you. I'm not so lucky when you smoke.
I think you should be allowed to smoke anywhere you wish, whatever you wish, as much as you wish, with the stipulation that as soon as you light up you start inhaling, but that you should never be allowed to exhale.
That's the only way I see that smokers and nonsmokers can live together.
You are free to simply stay away from places where smoking is allowed. Problem solved!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
In the meantime, I think I'll make plans to vacation in Wisconsin this year.
That's certainly your right. I argue against smoking bans but I honestly support the right of state and local government to enact them. I just don't want a federal ban and don't want bans in my state/city/county. If I choose to go to Wisconsin, Michigan, or anywhere else with tough anti-smoking laws, then I understand I will have to abide by them.
I really don't understand this reasoning. It's OK for a smoker to stink the place up, and someone who doesn't do that can just go somewhere else? It seems the burden should be on the smoker to not smoke, just like you don't litter, etc.
Are you really equating littering on public property to smoking on private property?
Well, if the hotel owner says you can poop on the floor, then you can poop on the floor, for an agreed upon price of course. It's his property.
This is probably already against the law...against public health codes. Likely, if the health department was called or whatever agency inspects these places, this would require a clean up else get shut down. Same thing as having rats running around in restaurants. And poop in the hotel pool...the pool gets shut down for this since customer's health is at risk. Your home/private pool is not subject to the same health code standards as a business. Just like you can have rats in your home kitchen and it isn't against the law, but a restaurant will get cited for it.
^^Meaning that no business if free to do exactly as the owner(s) choose, private property or not.
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.
