How do you feel about city smoking bans?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry to have to be so cold about it, but I'm fine with such laws.

I dislike smoking, I dislike smokers who insist on polluting the air I breath; and while I respect their right to continue smoking, I don't see why my taxes should go towards paying for their health care when they come down with lung cancer (socialist health care system in my country).

Ultimately I secretly wish all smokers would just die and fuck off.
 
Too exposed... your body got bombarded with these allergens. Even though your mother had the immuno capabilities to defend herself (and you, while inside the womb), once you got out, you were exposed to these things that would have hurt you if it weren't for her immune system.

Just with most anything in life, moderation is key. Drink too much milk? Lactose intolerance.
Too much sugar? Diabetes. Too many pets? Allergies... of course you can build up your immune system to allow for more and more allergens in your system.. but you know...
I'm gonna use this overexposure reason next time my latex allergy comes up in a conversation. "yeah man I smang that ass so much that i got a latex allergy"
 
I don't see why my taxes should go towards paying for their health care when they come down with lung cancer (socialist health care system in my country). .
To play devil's advocate: THey propably could say the same about people like you (ie..wishing smokers to die ;) ) using money from their taxes, seeing how high cigaretes are taxed in most countries.
 
But allergies? I have no allargies and I don't think I would ever get cat allegry even if I would sit surrounded by twenty cats 24/7.
Also..to much calcuim is different from lactose intolerance. You're acting like everybody will develop lactose intolerance if he drinks to much milk.
Look at it this way. It's not lactose intolerant... everyone has intolerance to lactose... it just depends on how much.

I'm allergic to peanuts... yet I eat peanut butter.. I had 2 full PBJ sandwhiches last night and I'm fine... but I can hit a certain point of breaking. Go to an allergist, you'll see you have allergies, they just show you HOW allergic you are..

I'm gonna use this overexposure reason next time my latex allergy comes up in a conversation. "yeah man I smang that ass so much that i got a latex allergy"
 
I was in Cologne the other weekend and most of the pubs there allow smoking. Was the first time I'd been inside a place that let you smoke indoors in about 10 years. Lasted 30 minutes before I had to leave. Smoking is a disgusting habit and one smoker can ruin the night and the clothing of many other people. Completely inconsiderate to do in an enclosed space. I'm surprised such bans are only just coming into some cities.
 
Look at it this way. It's not lactose intolerant... everyone has intolerance to lactose... it just depends on how much.

I'm allergic to peanuts... yet I eat peanut butter.. I had 2 full PBJ sandwhiches last night and I'm fine... but I can hit a certain point of breaking. Go to an allergist, you'll see you have allergies, they just show you HOW allergic you are..
But what you wrote before suggested that everybody is allergic to everything and it will get activated with enough exposure. That's what I'm asking about? If I go to allergist and he tells me I don't have peanuts allergy (no matter if small or big) then I dont think I would ever develop it even if I would eat ten cans a day.
 

Nemo

Will Eat Your Children
It's OK for me since I don't like second hand smoke, not one bit. But if there's a place where no on has objections to smoking it should be allowed IMO, but if even one person would object in that place then it should be banned in there.
 
It's OK for me since I don't like second hand smoke, not one bit. But if there's a place where no on has objections to smoking it should be allowed IMO, but if even one person would object in that place then it should be banned in there.
To be honest, in such cases that one person should be just thrown out of the establishment. Less hassle this way :)
 
What about cigar bars/lounges...should smoking be banned in those establishments as well? I smoke cigars occasionally (probably once every other month) and there's a handful of great places to smoke cigars in NYC (most of which were grandfathered in after the ban, if i recall correctly).

Perhaps the solution is to allow special exemptions for businesses that are wholly intended for smoking (e.g. cigar bars, smoking lounges, etc.)? Meaning, the business would have to prove to the city govt that their business model is centered around smoking, and then follow whatever rules the city has in place to operate safely/responsibly.

Although I guess if this weren't already the case, cigar bars wouldn't exist right now.
 
But what you wrote before suggested that everybody is allergic to everything and it will get activated with enough exposure. That's what I'm asking about? If I go to allergist and he tells me I don't have peanuts allergy (no matter if small or big) then I dont think I would ever develop it even if I would eat ten cans a day.
Once again, the over-exposure, even without the initial allergies can trigger an allergic reaction.
 
"Bloody government -- happy to sell me cirrhosis, depression, fighting drunks and bleary-eyed car smashes... but god forbid I have a smoke while they're doing it."

If they ever try to instill a ban that forbids people from smoking in their own apartments/balconies, there'll be a hell to pay. Luckily there's no way to supervise such an idiotic ban. =)
 
They're great. I used to have to move all around the bar to annoy crybaby non-smokers. Now I can easily blast them all as they enter and leave the bar.
 
Fort Worth is considering banning the hiring of smokers in the local government. Hope Austin considers it!

I must say though, the smokers at my private sector job were much more annoying and intrusive than my public sector one.
 
I feel great about it.

Though I would be OK with bars (not restaurants, straight up bars) being allowed to decide whether or not they're smoke free. But everywhere else? Fuck it, no smoking.
 
Infringement on business owners' rights. If you don't like a place that allows smoking, take your fucking wallet somewhere else.

I'm a non-smoker.
Exactly, the logic for these bans is that no entrepreneur should be allowed to market a smoking friendly atmosphere.

There should be places smokers like to go and places non-smokers like to go.
 
As a smoker, I personally don't really mind. While not as convenient, I always step out to have a smoke just to not bother people inside.

In China its another story though, can you literally smoke anywhere.
 

DarthWoo

I'm glad Grandpa porked a Chinese Muslim
They actually mentioned something on the local news tonight about how cigarette butts are the most frequently littered item in this country, and how it poses a rather severe environmental problem. It's bloody disgusting how filthy people treat their surroundings as their own personal ashtray. I recall there being a constant small mountain of cigarette butts on the ground just outside any door into any dorm building back when I was at university.
 
Licensees should have been given the choice, rather than a blanket ban.
This argument doesn't hold water. Prior to smoking bans, licensees did have a choice, and every single one of them chose to allow smoking. Therefore, governments did something about it.

Are you proposing that the number of smoking-allowed bars be regulated by governments?

Edit: Just realized that I quoted a 5 day old post.
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
Smoke from the car in front of you? Why do you have your windows down in traffic? Auto exhaust is toxic. Keep it on recycled air flow near intersections and lots of traffic.

I think these bans are over zealous. Maybe they're needed, but as far as public safety goes it's trivial compared to junk food and juice in public schools, junk food advertisements for children, and fast food everywhere.

If you're going to be authoritarian, at least push to ban all fast food. While fascist, it would save more lives.

Or ban people that walk around in traffic, parking lots, buildings/elevators while fucking with their smart phone. They think they're multitasking, but really they're getting in everyone else's way.
 
Pro-smoking ban. Another person smoking adversely affects the health of those around him. That should almost be a crime in and of itself.

It's also crazy how much more the cost of smoking-related healthcare treatment outweighs the meager revenue gained by taxing tobacco. With lung cancer being one of the most common illnesses nowadays, there is no way for the government to make back that money it spends treating people.
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
Show me a case where eating fast food has killed someone else or damaged their health along with yours. It's okay, I'll wait.
Fast food overstimulates the brain and in many people causes excessive hunger. The region of the brain stimulated is the very same as smoking, and is stimulated by smell, associated logos, social environments, etc. It's the same. Instead of increasing the risk of cancer, it increases the risk of diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and a bunch of other stuff.

Same with alcohol. If you're for banning smoking, you should be consistent and ban drinking. Unless you have controlled trials on animals showing that social use of alcohol by others doesn't reinforce drinking in addicted mammals, but 2nd hand smoking does. Or that the 2nd hand fumes of smoking in controlled trails causes significant problems and have very specific amounts of fumes characterized.
 
Fast food overstimulates the brain and in many people causes excessive hunger. The region of the brain stimulated is the very same as smoking, and is stimulated by smell, associated logos, social environments, etc. It's the same. Instead of increasing the risk of cancer, it increases the risk of diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and a bunch of other stuff.

Same with alcohol. If you're for banning smoking, you should be consistent and ban drinking. Unless you have controlled trials on animals showing that social use of alcohol by others doesn't reinforce drinking in addicted mammals, but 2nd hand smoking does. Or that the 2nd hand fumes of smoking in controlled trails causes significant problems and have very specific amounts of fumes characterized.
You didn't answer his question. To answer his question, there's no such thing as second hand eating.
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
You didn't answer his question. To answer his question, there's no such thing as second hand eating.
I did answer the question, because the hedonic centers of the brain pick up the ques of fast food through smell and encourage overeating. If public smoking is banned, then so should eating fast food and junk food in public. You're welcome to disagree, but you'll need evidence.

You can read the link I posted, or you can simply recall any time you've been near smelly, delicious food and how it amplifies hunger.
 
I did answer the question, because the hedonic centers of the brain pick up the ques of fast food through smell and encourage overeating. If public smoking is banned, then so should eating fast food and junk food in public. You're welcome to disagree, but you'll need evidence.

You can read the link I posted, or you can simply recall any time you've been near smelly, delicious food and how it amplifies hunger.
Are the effects of second hand eating reversible?
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
Are the effects of second hand eating reversible?
It hasn't been studied enough to know. Dr Guyenet has talked about how in some cases it's nearly impossible to completely correct homeostatis, but this is an unknown.

If someone becomes obese and doesn't learn out to reverse it in time, I would think permanent damage to organs is a possibility. Think of diabetics.
 
If someone becomes obese and doesn't learn out to reverse it in time, I would think permanent damage to organs is a possibility. Think of diabetics.
But you're not going to become obese unless you're eating the food yourself.

Second hand smokers don't get the same level of choice.
 
This argument doesn't hold water. Prior to smoking bans, licensees did have a choice, and every single one of them chose to allow smoking. Therefore, governments did something about it.

Are you proposing that the number of smoking-allowed bars be regulated by governments?

Edit: Just realized that I quoted a 5 day old post.
Then stop going to those places if you don't like being around smokers. Most restaurants already don't allow smoking so that's actually very easy to do.

By your logic, we should limit or altogether ban drinking anywhere outside of your own home. Since when people get drunk, they can act very obnoxious or even dangerous.
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
But you're not going to become obese unless you're eating the food yourself.

Second hand smokers don't get the same level of choice.
That's true.

But it doesn't take away from the damage that public junk food and fast food do.

Sure you have to eat food to get fat, but hunger doesn't exist in a vacuum. Telling people not to overeat while allowing stimuli to drive up hunger excessively is an approach similar to teenage sexual abstinence.

Personally I'm only for banning all 3 (smoking, drinking, junk food) for public areas that have children, or universal services like libraries, post office, stores, ie everything except entertainment geared towards adults. Some bars would be smoke free, others not...though I think alcoholics ignoring how damaging alcohol is compared to nicotine are fooling themselves. Even in moderation it doesn't really improve mortality, just mortality from heart disease. But bars are not moderation.
 
Then stop going to those places if you don't like being around smokers. Most restaurants already don't allow smoking so that's actually very easy to do.

By your logic, we should limit or altogether ban drinking anywhere outside of your own home. Since when people get drunk, they can act very obnoxious or even dangerous.
Except the danger is inherent to the act of smoking and secondary to the act of imbibing alcohol and when people behave in a dangerous manner when drunk that behaviour that endangers others is, in fact, banned. If you can figure out a way to ban second-hand smoke without banning smoking I'd really like to hear it.
 
Then I'm going to move to China where I can be free.
Yep. I went to a five star hotel's restaurant thinking you can't smoke inside, and of course, it turns out you can. Then I had to take a crap real bad, so I rushed to the stall and when I closed the door and looked to my left, there was a built-in place to ash your cigs in the stall. It was so beautiful. *tears*
 
I don't smoke and smoking is disgusting but if somewhere wants to allow smoking then that's fine. If I don't want to get hit with second hand smoke then I won't go to that place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.