Do you think smokers are being discriminated against?

[Cuckolded_BlK_Male]

Re: Yes, they are!

In my life, I only went out with a smoker ONCE.....and as soon as I found out.....I told her....."Here is $50, take a cab home"!

You are quite a gentleman. I'd have summarily got up and left without saying a word.

What I'm wondering is how you didn't smell the stench of cigarettes in her hair and on her clothes ... not to mention the yellowing of her teeth and finger nails.

 

[Cuckolded_BlK_Male]

If they're truly concerned about the possible consequences to others of some people's vices, then shouldn't they also ban alcohol in bars and restaurants? Which is more dangerous: being stuck in car with a driver who smokes, or being stuck in a car with a driver who's been drinking?

This is a ridiculous argument. Obviously bars and restaurants that serve alchohol can be held liable if one of their patrons kills someone on the way home from their establishment. The answer is not to ban the sale of alchohol, but rather to make the penalties so incredibly stiff for drunk driving, that if someone does it once, they'll never have the opportunity to do it again. I say revoke their license and take their car and sell it. Levy a fine so large that they'll have to take out a mortgage to pay it off. And, lock them up for a few months at their own expense. A few rounds of (let's fuck the new guy) should wise them up.

Now other than the minority of people who are stupid enough to drive while impared, there is no comparison between drinking and smoking. Someone's drink isn't going to leap out of it's glass and force its way down my gullet. Smoking is offensive because everyone in the place has to smell it and breathe it. This is analogous to someone forcing your head into their ass and making you smell their farts all evening.

 

[CatEyes]

Re: Re: n/a

Where are you getting these ideas from? Smokers who sit in smoking sections specifically ask to sit in the smoking section so that they can smoke there. And the majority of smokers, in my experience, do NOT ask another person. The ones who do ask usually do so thinking that the other person will say, "Oh, no, of course I don't mind! Go right ahead!". It's a formality.

That's why it's called a smoking section, why would you ask if you could smoke if you're sitting in a smoking section? Other smokers don't care if you smoke.

 

[CatEyes]

Re: Re: Do you think smokers are being discriminated against?

Didn't they try that in NYC before?

They tried it years ago and the bars lost a lot of business so they changed it back.

 

[lilminx]

Re: Re: Re: n/a

That's why it's called a smoking section, why would you ask if you could smoke if you're sitting in a smoking section? Other smokers don't care if you smoke.

That was my first point.


In my second point, I'm referring to places other than smoking sections in restaurants. I'm not quite sure where Kuntmode was referring to.

 

[CatEyes]

Re: Re: Re: Re: n/a

That was my first point.


In my second point, I'm referring to places other than smoking sections in restaurants. I'm not quite sure where Kuntmode was referring to.

Well being a smoker myself I've never asked anyone if it's ok if I smoke. Then again I also never stand near people and smoke unless I know they're ok with it. If they're friends and I know it doesn't bother them I'll smoke near them but if they're non smokers I'll stand a little to the side and make sure I don't blow the smoke towards them. If I'm somewhere where there are strangers around that are non smokers or children are around I'll step some distance away so I'm not anywhere near them. Most smokers will do that.

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Enough Hysteria....

Originally posted by Lost Cause
How about facts? http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm#iarc

I know someone will interject their "feelings" and other blather they've been spoon fed, so let's get on with it. Baaaah Baaah!

C'mon, now, LC. You should be painfully aware by now that the "We don't need no steenkin' facts" mantra trumps reason every time.

It should be a reasonable presumption that people who congregate in a forum like this devoted to the free exchange of ideas would be people who understand and appreciate the ideas, concepts and implementation of freedom.

Well, after reading the first 4 or 5 posts, it should now be painfully obvious how ignorant that presumption really is.

These people espouse attitudes that strongly convey that freedom is their tool to oppress others whose behaviors find disfavor with these elitists who deem themselves far better suited to making these decisions for mankind as a whole than the individual.

Look at the morons who scream about discrimination in one instance and champion it in this one. They must be in severe contortions over the Constitutional provision of equal treatment under the law and wanting the law to oppress those whose choices they don't like. I do so love hypocrisy. It's such fun watching the pseudo-intellectual pretzel logic such morons must of necessity embrace and employ to legitimize their dichotomies.

I find it equally impressive that the WHO study of several years ago which concluded that second hand smoke (passive smoking) is NOT a health risk. This study found no significant difference in health risk between those exposed to "second-hand" smoke and those who weren't. But, since it doesn't serve their whim, the anti-smoking Nazis ignore, suppress and refute this study. They rather cite another study which was designed to produce the results they deemed more useful for their totalitarian designs.

And the there are the gullible (Hi christo) who buy the propaganda that these taxes are necessary to offset the health care costs incidental to smokers. This is flawed for two reasons.

First, as is typical of that vast majority of problems politicians set out to solve, it is something that would not be a problem except for their actions which created it. Specifically, the theft of money via taxes from some to pay health care costs for others (communism/socialism/collectivism) is the root cause of this problem.

Second, the smokers by and large do not incur the huge and protracted health care costs cited because they kill themselves off before that happens.

Yet people still believe this bullshit. Look at California's disposition of its share of the tobacco industry shakedown by the Clinton administration.

Because of the incompetent crooked SOB the fools here elected for a governor, the tobacco settlement extortion proceeds are being sold to balance the state budget. And they are selling it for about 40 cents on the dollar.

Yeah, that's offsetting health care costs allright and I have a nice bridge in downtown NYC I'll sell you. (CHEAP, too)

So don't tell me there is any intellect or ethics behind shaking down tobacco companies and smokers. It's just another money grab by the thieves who call themselves political leaders to get their hands on more of OPM fueled by the populace stupid enough to.follow like sheep to the slaughter.

Originally posted by brokenbrainwave
They are, for it is a legal activity. However at times a little contitutional milk must be spilled for the good of the people.

And the sheep are always so proud to identify themselves.

Originally posted by Touch1
... They shouldn't stop with NY, it should be all the states.

Reminds me of Ayn Rand's warning from about 40 years ago when she said the new Fascists are coming from the left. It's nice of you to declare yourself so we don't have to guess at your identity.

Originally posted by The Heretic
...Whether a restaurant is a public or private place might be an interesting and valid debate, but comparing non-optional transportation to optional smoking is comparing apples to oranges. You can do better than that MC.

If it is not government owned and operated, how can it be anything but a private property enterprise in a free society? Have we come to accept the idea of nationalizing (governmental stealing) property?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

The most stupid thing I've ever seen was this man who was standing at the bus stop. smoking, who throw a piece of paper in the waist basket next to him, and then threw this cigarette on the ground and walked away...

 

[The Heretic]

Re: Re: Enough Hysteria....

Look at the morons who scream about discrimination in one instance and champion it in this one.

I have no problem with people smoking, and I wouldn't have any problem with them smoking around me if I didn't have to breathe their smoke. We can debate the effects of second hand smoke by quoting various studies and evidence, but I do know that being exposed to it makes me cough, and when I have even the slightest respiratory problem it makes me sick.

And the sheep are always so proud to identify themselves.Reminds me of Ayn Rand's warning from about 40 years ago when she said the new Fascists are coming from the left. It's nice of you to declare yourself so we don't have to guess at your identity.

This sounds somewhat like the oft repeated Nazi accusations others dream up when they don't have a better argument. Here come the facists!

If it is not government owned and operated, how can it be anything but a private property enterprise in a free society? Have we come to accept the idea of nationalizing (governmental stealing) property?

No - we haven't come to accept this idea - however, I live in the real world where I realize a number of things:

1) We all must share public spaces, regardless of who "owns" them. At a workplace or a public restaurant we are sharing that public space. I might support the idea of a restaurant where it is declared a "smoking space", but not public places where the public has less or no choice about whether they are present in that space. E.G., in a workplace we don't really have choice about whether we can avoid a workplace where smoking is allowed. Same goes for public transportation, etc.

2) While we may own property (things we create or purchase), we don't really "own" real estate (land); we claim ownership, and for convenience sake we generally recognize that claim - but since we didn't create that real estate we don't really own it, any more than we can go out and claim some part of the ocean or the moon.

 

[RastaPope]

Blah blah blah.

Same ole thread.

 

[Guru]

 

[RastaPope]

Ban fat chicks then guys who don't flush after they take a shit in public bathrooms.

Gross.

 

[dickE]

bottom line is nearly 54% say Yes!

Not that many people smoke anymore so there must be something else driving their opinions, huh??

 

[christo]

The tobacco industry was not "shaken down" by the government. Tobacco executives cut a deal to keep their businesses from being bankrupted by millions of lawsuits and to keep their executives from going to prison. For years, tobacco executives testified UNDER OATH that there was no scientific evidence that smoking was unhealthy or addictive. We now know that they were lying all along, that these companies not only knew from their own studies that smoking kills people and that nicotine is addictive.

Rather than waste decades and billions of dollars fighting it out in court, most state Attorney Generals decided it would benefit everyone to cut a deal, get a huge settlement from the tobacco companies, and keep those companies from going under. What those states did with the money is up to the individual state.

To say that smokers kill themselves off before they incur prohibitive health costs is just ludicrous. Smokers don't go "Urk!" and keel over. They suffer from long, slow, debilitating diseases. Cardiovascular disease, respiratory ailments, lung cancer, throat cancer, emphysema...these diseases all require serious medical attention, and they can take years and years to kill you.

Taxing cigarettes brings Econ 101 to bear on the problem. If you increase the price of cigarettes, it will reduce demand. If you start hitting people in the pocketbook, they'll think long and hard about quitting. If kids have to shell out $7 for a pack of smokes, they might not start in the first place.

The only thing I don't like about taxing cigarettes is that it's a tax that hits poor people with a disproportionate share of the pain. I would mitigate this somewhat by using some of that tax revenue to subsidize smoking-cessation drugs and programs. Get people who want to quit as much help as you can. Some people like to smoke, and I have no problem with that. But you're gonna pay for the pleasure.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by christo
The tobacco industry was not "shaken down" by the government. Tobacco executives cut a deal to keep their businesses from being bankrupted by millions of lawsuits and to keep their executives from going to prison.

As Shakespeare said, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Use whatever euphemisim makes you feel better about the shakedown. I prefer directness and honesty in terms. It makes for clarity of understanding.

Originally posted by christo
For years, tobacco executives testified UNDER OATH that there was no scientific evidence that smoking was unhealthy or addictive. We now know that they were lying all along, that these companies not only knew from their own studies that smoking kills people and that nicotine is addictive.

For far more years the members of Congress and the holders of the Presidency and appointees to the Federal bench and other judicial positions have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

With VERY FEW exceptions, they have all lied and the result of their lies has been far more devastating than the tobacco companies have managed.

They (tobacco companies) can only recruit victims who are willing and gullible enough to buy their product. The government officials can coercively conscript their victims and do it routinely. So don't give me this crap about lying to Congress.

Lying to these lying sacks of shit is almost honorable; I certainly don't find it anything I can seriously disrespect. Honesty is owed to those who respect it.

Read the Constitution and when you do, please cite for me the portion which gives the Federal government the authority to regulate or control a business or to provide health care or to tell me what drugs or other substances I may or may not consume. I'd really be interested to know where you find it.

Rather than harping on the tobacco industry for the problems created by political thugs who are perpetually dishonest and dishonorable, why don't name the true culprits as culpable and hold them accountable; the politicians who will not honor their oath of office?

And since you obviously missed totally my point about the states irresponsibility, the entire shakedown was trumped up on the basis of funding smoking cessation campaigns and supplementing health care costs. There has been little application in either venue. How do you spell FRAUD?

 

[Mellon Collie]

First of all, yes, I DO have the nerve to bitch about people standing right outside the store wher I'm entering, so that I'm exposed to the smoke! You CAN go a few meters away, but I can't get into the shop any other way than through the entrance!

And a decade or two ago I COULD have smoked inside the store and followed your ass around as you shop. I think smokers have given up enough for nonsmokers. The next thing you know, I won't even be able to smoke in my own house.

And we're not talking about the fumes the cars give out, that's another subject for another thread. We're talking smoke from cigarettes and cigars. Unless you stick to the subject, I'll just assume that you're out of arguments.

If you cannot see how the two corollate then I will be forced to assume that you have no sort of common sense and that you just can't seem to understand the point that you're wrong.

 

[Morwen]

...

 

[RisiaSkye]

No. Of course not. Smokers stink like shit. If they want to smoke, stay home and smoke. No bus boy or waiter wants to have to breathe that shit 40 hours per week.

I worked on the serving side of the food & bev industry for seven years, my husband has for 10, my best friend for another decade--and I'd estimate that 75% of our aggregate coworkers have been smokers. Often, smoking is the only way to get a few minutes break--despite laws mandating break times every 2-4 hours. Of course, *those* laws aren't enforced. Isn't that funny?

Many, if not most, people who work in the industry for very long are at least part-time smokers. Generally speaking, the staff of restaurants and bars aren't the ones pushing for legislated non-smoking zones--despite what you've seen in the commercials on TV.

Oh, and the taxes need to be raised on tobacco products ... I'd say about $2.50 more on a package of cigarettes.

See, that's exactly how I feel about baby clothes and all the other paraphenalia of parenthood.

*I* certainly don't enjoy spending time around other people's children--they're loud, they often smell, they continually demand attention, they're unpredictably violent and verbally offensive to innocent bystanders. And parents are killing themselves, you know--sleep deprivation; sub-standard adult nutrition--eating like kids; the body stresses of pregnancy, labor, and child rearing itself; the emotional and physical problems associated with monetary and social strain. I mean, really. All that is deadly. Why do I have to put up with it?

Just because it's legal? And a large number of my fellow citizens breed, so I must let them bring their children in public?

Well, yes.

And before anyone plays Master of the Obvious--Yes, of course I'm being a prat. That's the whole fucking point--everybody's (including me) always so quick to say "well, sure, rights are important. Equality is important. Unless I find you annoying, unimportant, or in some way worthy of my negative judgement." It's stupid, and not just when directed at smokers.

Although, I do want to say something to those who favor this kind of legislation--1) To paraphrase Eddie Izzard: "Yes, no smoking in bars now. And soon, no drinking and no talking." And 2) If you think you're going to die of second hand smoke, you've got too much fucking time on your hands. Invest a few hours in actually *reading* the research on the subject, and think about getting yourself a new and more sustainable paranoia--creating a new little drama for yourself. After all, vague unsubstantiated fear's good for you, right?

IMO, of course.

 

[Gord]

Passive smoking is non smokers inhaling the smoke from smokers when they are in the company of smokers.

There was a celebrated case of an an entertainer in the UK who died from lung cancer brought about by passive smoking. Never smoked in his life but played in jazz clubs, notoriously smokey atmospheres.

Blue that case of Roy Castle was never proven to be due to passive smoking - in fact there are more harmful things in the air due to cars/buses than you will ever get from passive smoking

Passive smoking has never been proven , people get cancer for many different reasons -

OK Smoking is dangerous of course to the individual concerned,

I do agree though with non smoking sections in restaurants and in bars - there is nothing wrong with that

Just sometimes get annoyed with the holyier than though we know whats best brigade -

Its like the anti hunting brigade - there are a 101 things that need to get sorted before we turn on hunting - same with smoking

Lets sort out drugs etc - If NY or London or any where could clear the crack problem off their streets first or get homless people looked after or even cleared car congestion maybe then they I wouldnt be so pissed that they go after smokers

 

[Star of Penumbra]

Hypothetical situation: You're sitting in a retaurant, having a nice meal, and all of a sudden the guy at the next table starts throwing anthax germs into the air every two minutes. Woudln't you want to sit somewhere else?

 

[Byron In Exile]

 

[Gord]

Hypothetical situation: You're sitting in a retaurant, having a nice meal, and all of a sudden the guy at the next table starts throwing anthax germs into the air every two minutes. Woudln't you want to sit somewhere else?

It is all about personal choice and freedom - there are plenty restaurants that have non smoking sections - or are smoke free - choose one of them

To compare smoking to anthrax is well - I am sure that you are being a bit tongue in cheek

If passive smoking harmed as many people that the anti brigade made us believe - do you realy think that smoking would be allowed - if there was categoric proof - shit it would be banned in 100% -

But it has never been proven

 

[bluespoke]

It is all about personal choice and freedom - there are plenty restaurants that have non smoking sections - or are smoke free - choose one of them

To compare smoking to anthrax is well - I am sure that you are being a bit tongue in cheek

If passive smoking harmed as many people that the anti brigade made us believe - do you realy think that smoking would be allowed - if there was categoric proof - shit it would be banned in 100% -

But it has never been proven

Do a google search on passive smoking. As I said earlier in the thread the proof is there from the Lancet, the BMJ, the New England Journal of Medicine.

Whilst there may be plenty of restaurants with no smoking sections they are basically useless. Smoke doesn't stay in one place, it moves about.

It's not just about people being anti-smoking, it's about real health issues. Asthmatics, for example, have great difficulty coping with cigarette smoke.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Well most states do have laws against that drinking and driving thing. What's your point?

If you drink in public, I or someone else could end up dead or injured.

If I smoke in public, you may have to wash your clothes and shampoo your hair.

 

[Gord]

Do a google search on passive smoking. As I said earlier in the thread the proof is there from the Lancet, the BMJ, the New England Journal of Medicine.

Whilst there may be plenty of restaurants with no smoking sections they are basically useless. Smoke doesn't stay in one place, it moves about.

It's not just about people being anti-smoking, it's about real health issues. Asthmatics, for example, have great difficulty coping with cigarette smoke.

But again I go back to my point - if passive smoking gives people cancer and it was a medical fact - then it would have been outlawed by now . There would be huge law suits going on , infact anyone who smokes in a public place could then be charged with manslaughter or culpible homicide.

Think about it if passive smoking was that dangerous then why has all goverments in the world not made tobacco a killer drug that is banned . then the analogy about throwing anthrax spores around a restaurant would hold water.