Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 12-26-2011, 09:15 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,286 posts, read 51,837,829 times
Reputation: 23660

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
Oh please, the government has nothing to do with this. If you want to blame someone then blame the non smokers who want nothing to do with the second hand smoke. As a former smoker I went out of my way to smoke without offending people.....because it is offensive. Yes your freedom is a right to smoke but not in my place please.
I'd NEVER smoke in your place without permission, but we're not talking about private residences... or did you mean to imply the entire hotel (or theater) is your place, but not the smokers' place? That doesn't seem very fair, now does it?

I'm glad smoking isn't allowed in shared public places, but hotel rooms aren't shared - at least not with a stranger, and I assume whoever travels together is aware of the other person's smoking status. So if you don't want to be exposed to smoke in a hotel room, book a non-smoking room or hotel, and don't share the room with an indoor-only smoker. Problem solved!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2011, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,493,311 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
You are absolutely right.....just as government needs to stay out of gay rights and abortion. They are our choices but yet some want to deny us of that. So what is the difference????

There is no difference. Granted, government has a right to restrict or curtail some things (such as murder and arson), so the question becomes one of which things we can agree on, which ones rise to the level of needing government action.

The problem is that few on the anti side of smoking are willing to accept any kind of compromise. For too many of them, there is no answer but total bans and that's the point where democracy ceases to function and tyranny replaces it. The same is true of those other issues, though I'd suggest that government CAN'T stay out of gay rights since government is the arbiter of what is, or is not, a marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2011, 09:23 PM
 
31,955 posts, read 14,961,849 times
Reputation: 13595
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
I'd NEVER smoke in your place without permission, but we're not talking about private residences... or did you mean to imply the entire hotel (or theater) is your place, but not the smokers' place? That doesn't seem very fair, now does it?

I'm glad smoking isn't allowed in shared public places, but hotel rooms aren't shared - at least not with a stranger, and I assume whoever travels together is aware of the other person's smoking status. So if you don't want to be exposed to smoke in a hotel room, book a non-smoking room or hotel, and don't share the room with an indoor-only smoker. Problem solved!
I would welcome you in my home to smoke on my deck lol I never smoked inside. You do know that people smoke in nonsmoking rooms as I did. Non smoking rooms mean nothing to smokers. Smoking is an addiction
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2011, 09:48 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,561,448 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
That isn't the point, every employer is required to do everything possible to make their businesses as safe as possible for all employees.
Yes, that IS the point. Once again, this approach of your persuasion is attempting to blur distinctions between public safety and so-called "public health" (which can literally be definied as anything the health police want to define it as...).

It is an employers responsibility to meet reasonable safety standards, sure. And, if it is a hazardous job? Then to let the potential employee know what the potential risks are ahead of time.

Otherwise? The employer and employee relationship means (or should) paying an agreed upon wage for an honest days work. If the employee doesn't want to be in a smoking environment (which is known aforehand?), then apply somewhere else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2011, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,493,311 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
I would welcome you in my home to smoke on my deck lol I never smoked inside. You do know that people smoke in nonsmoking rooms as I did. Non smoking rooms mean nothing to smokers. Smoking is an addiction
If I came to your home, I'd be happy to smoke out on the deck. Conversely, if you came to mine, please don't fan your nose when I light up inside.

But, the rest of your post a little too stereotypical for my taste. You really can't just make the blanket statement that non-smoking rooms mean nothing to smokers because that simply isn't true. I've stayed in non-smoking rooms and wouldn't think of firing one up in there. All of my smoking buddies are the same way. I'd suspect that smokers who do that are a tiny minority and hardly indicative of the rest of us.

Also, you can't just claim that all smokers are addicted and get away with it. Addiction is a physical thing and, as with alcohol, not everybody who indulges is physically addicted. Most are habitual smokers. I know I fit that category because I can stop anytime I like, for as long as I like and I've been smoking two packs a day or better for nearly 50 years.

It might interest you to know, by the way, that even Congress doesn't buy that bit about all smokers being addicted. In the Public Law which placed tobacco under the regulatory control of the FDA, Congress defined long-term tobacco use as a "chronic disease," not an addiction. They even went further and defined tobacco use by minors as a "pediatric disease."

I'm just waiting for the day when some irate smoker uses that information to file for Social Security disability because he can't work and smoke at the same time and then goes out and forces restaurants to put smoking sections back in to accommodate his disease under the American's With Disabilities Act.

Won't the smoke-Nazi's have a fit then?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2011, 10:06 PM
 
31,955 posts, read 14,961,849 times
Reputation: 13595
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
If I came to your home, I'd be happy to smoke out on the deck. Conversely, if you came to mine, please don't fan your nose when I light up inside.

But, the rest of your post a little too stereotypical for my taste. You really can't just make the blanket statement that non-smoking rooms mean nothing to smokers because that simply isn't true. I've stayed in non-smoking rooms and wouldn't think of firing one up in there. All of my smoking buddies are the same way. I'd suspect that smokers who do that are a tiny minority and hardly indicative of the rest of us.

Also, you can't just claim that all smokers are addicted and get away with it. Addiction is a physical thing and, as with alcohol, not everybody who indulges is physically addicted. Most are habitual smokers. I know I fit that category because I can stop anytime I like, for as long as I like and I've been smoking two packs a day or better for nearly 50 years.

It might interest you to know, by the way, that even Congress doesn't buy that bit about all smokers being addicted. In the Public Law which placed tobacco under the regulatory control of the FDA, Congress defined long-term tobacco use as a "chronic disease," not an addiction. They even went further and defined tobacco use by minors as a "pediatric disease."

I'm just waiting for the day when some irate smoker uses that information to file for Social Security disability because he can't work and smoke at the same time and then goes out and forces restaurants to put smoking sections back in to accommodate his disease under the American's With Disabilities Act.

Won't the smoke-Nazi's have a fit then?
Do I really care what congress thinks. And can you really stop anytime. I don't think so because you are addicted and are in denial. Addiction is not always physical ....it's mental.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2011, 10:06 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,286 posts, read 51,837,829 times
Reputation: 23660
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
You do know that people smoke in nonsmoking rooms as I did. Non smoking rooms mean nothing to smokers.
Sooooo, then what good will this law do?

Maybe you broke the rules, but I always obey non-smoking regulations... probably because I grew up in California, where that's been the norm for decades now. But your point is irrelevant, since (as I said above) this law means nothing if we're assuming everyone will ignore it. You're actually arguing against the laws, since offering a smoking room option would discourage smokers from lighting up in non-smoking rooms. Right? If given the option at check-in, I certainly wouldn't take a non-smoking room if I wanted to smoke inside!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2011, 10:12 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,286 posts, read 51,837,829 times
Reputation: 23660
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
Addiction is not always physical ....it's mental.
I have to agree with you on this, and I'm 100% addicted (to cigarettes) both physically AND mentally - no denial here! But I also don't pretend to know what other people feel or think, so if he says "I can stop anytime" I won't argue with that either. People doubted when I said that about a certain drug I used to do, until I decided to stop and quit cold turkey that day... haven't missed it over a decade later, and didn't even experience an initial withdrawal. Everyone is different, ya know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2011, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,488,465 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
I'd NEVER smoke in your place without permission, but we're not talking about private residences... or did you mean to imply the entire hotel (or theater) is your place, but not the smokers' place? That doesn't seem very fair, now does it?

I'm glad smoking isn't allowed in shared public places, but hotel rooms aren't shared - at least not with a stranger, and I assume whoever travels together is aware of the other person's smoking status. So if you don't want to be exposed to smoke in a hotel room, book a non-smoking room or hotel, and don't share the room with an indoor-only smoker. Problem solved!
"It's not fair" sounds like a grade school playground taunt, not an adult discussion. And you know what? It's always the bullies who yell "it's not fair"! Who is being hurt by someone not smoking? No one. Who is being hurt by someone smoking? Many.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2011, 10:15 PM
 
3,115 posts, read 7,113,995 times
Reputation: 1807
As someone who gets physically ill from cigarette smoke, this makes me happy. I've stayed in hotels before where my non-smoking room was adjacent to a smoking room, and I've gotten very, very sick. The smoke goes out into the hallways and right into the other rooms, so thinking that you're in your own private space, bothering no one, is simply wrong. I've been pleased that the past few times I've traveled I've been able to find non-smoking hotels.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:08 AM.

© 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