forgot how much I hate smoke

[Brother Mango]

I was in a band of 4 people. The other 3 smoked. Preparing for weekly rehearsal was a drag because it would be 3 - 5 hours of cigarette smoke.

 

A couple of other bands had just 1 smoker. That means regular smoke breaks because the smoker wants to be polite about not smoking in the rehearsal space.

[poomwah]

That's the infringement. Pick your infringement. A woman needs a job to support her only child and she's a waitress with asthma who can't work in smokey environments. The smokey bars nearby all need help yet she can't take the job. It's an infringement. Her right to work in a safe environment overrides any perceived right to smoke, especially when you can just walk outside and smoke. She can't walk outside and work. Sometimes laws need to be made because they are civil and choosing to ban smoking in public places is a very civil thing to do. It's one law that lawmakers got right. You can't say to people, "breathe in my smoke or get the heck out". It's barbaric. I'm surprised it took so long to ban in the face of overwhelming evidence concerning secondhand smoke. Here's a small list of problems caused by indoor smoking; More colds More sinus/ear infections More headaches More bad sleeping patterns More asthma More emphysema More cancer More death More strokes More skin problems More blood ailments More organ failure More deadly fires More burns on nonsmokers skin/clothes The list goes on for miles. I grew up in a smokey househould and had (or still have) horrible asthma and allergies as a result. My parents had the right to smoke but they didn't know any better because the tobacco companies paid gobs of money to suppress information. Now that we have the information, the lawmakers did the right thing despite the gobs of money they took in from tobacco companies to thwart the ban. They figured out there was more cash in supporting the lawyers who wanted the tobacco companies money!!

 

ok, this is exactly how I felt until I listened to the ravings of a couple people I know who are DJ's and talked about how it hurt their business, and how it wasn't right because non smokers like me have a choice, etc etc. After reading what you read, I saw so much of how I actually do still feel about it. I guess i just acquiesced from the pressure of listening to them bitch. When they were talking about the ban I was all for it, when the enforced it, I was all for it, after the constant whining of my Dj friends, i started feeling a little selfish. But I guess I've flip flopped back to my original view on it

[hawkhuff]

 

I know what you mean, that's the way I felt until a buddy of mine pointed out I do have a choice though. I can leave if I don't like it.. It sucks that that would be my only choice but I still have the choice.

 

 

In NY there was a plan introduced where the owner would decide what they wanted in THEIR business. They used a traffic light kind of sign and if it was red it was a smoking establishment, if yellow it had smoking and non-smoking areas and if green then it was smoke free. Pure logic. You don't like the smoke, don't go to that establishment. What's wrong with that plan? Eventually we might still be where we are now. The market forces would eventually compel many businesses to 'go green' if they wanted the business would go smoke free. After all, the mojority are now non-smoking.

 

Instead the nanny {censored}ing NY government used its' dictatorial powers to tell businesses, once more, you are going to do what we say. {censored} you and your business, you don't run things, we do. We own you. How positively mofioso of them. Once again.

 

That's the government you want?

[hawkhuff]

That's the infringement. Pick your infringement. A woman needs a job to support her only child and she's a waitress with asthma who can't work in smokey environments. The smokey bars nearby all need help yet she can't take the job. It's an infringement. Her right to work in a safe environment overrides any perceived right to smoke, especially when you can just walk outside and smoke. She can't walk outside and work. Sometimes laws need to be made because they are civil and choosing to ban smoking in public places is a very civil thing to do. It's one law that lawmakers got right. You can't say to people, "breathe in my smoke or get the heck out". It's barbaric. I'm surprised it took so long to ban in the face of overwhelming evidence concerning secondhand smoke. Here's a small list of problems caused by indoor smoking; More colds More sinus/ear infections More headaches More bad sleeping patterns More asthma More emphysema More cancer More death More strokes More skin problems More blood ailments More organ failure More deadly fires More burns on nonsmokers skin/clothes The list goes on for miles. I grew up in a smokey househould and had (or still have) horrible asthma and allergies as a result. My parents had the right to smoke but they didn't know any better because the tobacco companies paid gobs of money to suppress information. Now that we have the information, the lawmakers did the right thing despite the gobs of money they took in from tobacco companies to thwart the ban. They figured out there was more cash in supporting the lawyers who wanted the tobacco companies money!!

I like you all or nothing guys, it's the only way.

 

Smoking and non-smoking is a choice. You want to be stupid? Keep smoking but don't blame everyone else for YOUR choice.

 

Just like going are not going to an establishment; it should be a choice. You're missing the bigger picture.

[Perfessor]

My non smoking doesn't affect your health! If I am half done with a meal at a restaurant and someone lights up next to me do I have the option of just walking out?

 

Get over it. Smoking is a 19th century habit.

[Brother Mango]

 

You don't like the smoke, don't go to that establishment. What's wrong with that plan?

 

 

The problem with that plan is that it's an easy decision if it's me by myself. If it's me & a smoker, or a larger group with a mix of smokers and non-smokers, we've got a problem. Bar owners have a problem that they can't see completely into.

 

-- Are the 2 smokers in my group of 5 causing us to see more movies because we can't agree on which bar to go to?

-- Are the 3 non-smokers going to the smoking establishment and secretly building up resentment for their 2 smoking buddies?

 

 

I think it's a great idea that, in this case, the government gets to be the bad guy. I don't get the dirty look from my buddy who's communicating "I need a cigarette so bad, but your whining ass insisted that we come to this place where I can't smoke."

 

Also, Hawkhuff, you don't mention the staff at these places and the constant inhalation of smoke. It's not reasonable to suggest "if the smoke bothers them, then go work somewhere else." Maybe the person is indeed actively looking for a different job and it takes 3 months. Maybe the person won't get cancer after 3 months' exposure, but coughing up phlegm is no fun and the dry-cleaning bill makes the situation worse.

 

Government intervention is necessary in some areas, and I think this is one of them.

 

How long would it take for bars & restaurants in a city to get green? Maybe never. Maybe 3 years? That's different from the government stating, "7 months from today, no mas!"

[Brother Mango]

 

My non smoking doesn't affect your health! If I am half done with a meal at a restaurant and someone lights up next to me do I have the option of just walking out? Get over it. Smoking is a 19th century habit.

 

 

Yes. You have a choice. Get up and offer to pay for the %'age of the meal that you've consumed at that point because you're leaving. And make a case about what's fair.

 

You might get into trouble, though.

[greenshag]

sheezus, I am a smoker, and wait until I am done with my meal to have a smoke.....outside.

 

If a smoker can't go more than 1 hour (the standard time for a meal) then that smoker has some issues.

[Brother Mango]

 

sheezus, I am a smoker, and wait until I am done with my meal to have a smoke.....outside. If a smoker can't go more than 1 hour (the standard time for a meal) then that smoker has some issues.

 

That creates problems when you work on the 25th floor of a building. Hourly cigarette breaks get old really fast.

[JeffBass]

There was no other way other than to ban it in all public places. They banned it from the workplace in every other industry because they knew it was bad for the workers. Why should bar + restaurant workers be exempt from the laws protection? Sorry but once the information (about secondhand smoke) became available then the argument became twisted into a "smokers rights" argument, which was a perversion of what rights truly represent. Non-smokers are forced to inhale smoker's smoke so the "right" is the right of the non-smoker, not visa versa.

Private ownership of business only goes so far when dictating what is and what isn't allowed. Basically when you say to a non-smoker, "go ahead and leave" it is actually a form of discrimination against the non-smoker, who has the right to purchase products and breathe without being poisoned. It's like a bar owner who promotes it's patrons to wear pointy white hoods, chant racist slogans and spit in black peoples food. The blacks can just leave if they don't like it, right?

[Brother Mango]

 

There was no other way other than to ban it in all public places. They banned it from the workplace in every other industry because they knew it was bad for the workers. Why should bar + restaurant workers be exempt from the laws protection? Sorry but once the information (about secondhand smoke) became available then the argument became twisted into a "smokers rights" argument, which was a perversion of what rights truly represent. Non-smokers are forced to inhale smoker's smoke so the "right" is the right of the non-smoker, not visa versa. Private ownership of business only goes so far when dictating what is and what isn't allowed. Basically when you say to a non-smoker, "go ahead and leave" it is actually a form of discrimination against the non-smoker, who has the right to purchase products and breathe without being poisoned. It's like a bar owner who promotes it's patrons to wear pointy white hoods, chant racist slogans and spit in black peoples food. The blacks can just leave if they don't like it, right?

 

 

I agree with your first paragraph. The second one is a little awkward. I agree that private ownership should definitely have limited freedom. But I don't know if you example works.

 

There are a lot of things that an owner is told what can and can't go on. Restaurants can't allow pets. There are regular health inspections. The garbage has to be handled a certain way. Would we want any of those to be left to a bar owner for the abstract concept of self-autonomy?

 

What about the owner who just didn't get around to having the garbage hauled away because he forgot, and then got too busy, then had to go out of town, and was too busy when he got back? Now there are rats and maggots behind his restaurant. But he's got 100% autonomy and free choice in addition to rats & maggots. Should it be left to the customers to just stop coming? How long would it take for the owner to get the message?

 

And what about the customers who just don't give a damn because the place has outstanding pastries. Seems to me that the government needs to protect these customers from themselves by restricting the owner's freedom.

[JeffBass]

I exaggerated the second point, it was over-the-top by design to stress a point about private ownership. I wasn't exaggerating though about the greatness of my new Carvin BX1200!!

[poomwah]

I exaggerated the second point, it was over-the-top by design to stress a point about private ownership. I wasn't exaggerating though about the greatness of my new Carvin BX1200!!

 

I know, it is pretty awesome. LOL. I honestly wish I hadn't bought mine, but the ONLY reason is because I never use it and resale on them is really low. If I had a use for it, I'd have no regret at all about owning it

[Brother Mango]

I exaggerated the second point, it was over-the-top by design to stress a point about private ownership. I wasn't exaggerating though about the greatness of my new Carvin BX1200!!

 

Just when I think there's a remote chance that I could like you, you go starting that Carvin junk. Thanks for wrecking my whole day.

[JeffBass]

I know, it is pretty awesome. LOL. I honestly wish I hadn't bought mine, but the ONLY reason is because I never use it and resale on them is really low. If I had a use for it, I'd have no regret at all about owning it

 

It only cost me 570.00 bucks brand new so I'm not worried about the resale. Honestly it's almost like this head was designed for my two cabs, which are different (one for low end, one 3-way). It has all the sounds, power and features I want so it's likely the last amp I'll ever need.

I have to let Bro Mango hear it so he feels the forbidden Carvin love like Bill Clinton had for Monica. Oh yeah baby that's sooooo gooood...

[Brother Mango]

It only cost me 570.00 bucks brand new so I'm not worried about the resale. Honestly it's almost like this head was designed for my two cabs, which are different (one for low end, one 3-way). It has all the sounds, power and features I want so it's likely the last amp I'll ever need. I have to let Bro Mango hear it so he feels the forbidden Carvin love like Bill Clinton had for Monica. Oh yeah baby that's sooooo gooood...

 

The only thing I'll hear is the guy offering me a free trussrod cover after months of unnecessary grief.

 

But hey. How 'bout those cancer-stick smokers????

[Bonoman]

I quit smoking today (cold turkey, bitches!), so I'm finding this thread to be highly amusing.

[vanlatte]

 

I quit smoking today (cold turkey, bitches!), so I'm finding this thread to be highly amusing.

 

 

Holy Schnitzel!!! Where did you come from?! :poke:

[greenshag]

 

I quit smoking today (cold turkey, bitches!), so I'm finding this thread to be highly amusing.

 

 

yeah, we shall see if that lasts!!:poke:

[chu2]

I quit smoking today (cold turkey, bitches!), so I'm finding this thread to be highly amusing.

 

Good man! I applaud you.

 

As to the rest of this thread,

 

We all know ciggarette smoke is annoying because of the scent. I mean, even I hate it when my clothes stink of smoke when I'm done indulging (I do enjoy the buzz, though).

 

What about hookah smokers, though, where do they fit into this equation? Their smoke smells like apples and roses and orange creamsicles. Do we kick them out, too? Obviously, the health nazis will, but if smoke smelled like vanilla creme and lavender, do you think so many people would be complaning about it?

 

Idk, I'm ranting.

 

(Kamel Reds FTW n cancer)

[JeffBass]

 

yeah, we shall see if that lasts!!:poke:

 

 

Too late, he's smoking out in the back right now.

[Bonoman]

yeah, we shall see if that lasts!!:poke:

 

It'll last. It was my birthday last week and I realized that I'm just too old for this now. Mind you, I've only quit smoking cigarettes ($10 a pack here in Canada, by the way, which makes quitting that much more attractive). Everything else is still fair game.

[hawkhuff]

 

The problem with that plan is that it's an easy decision if it's me by myself. If it's me & a smoker, or a larger group with a mix of smokers and non-smokers, we've got a problem. Bar owners have a problem that they can't see completely into. Also, Hawkhuff, you don't mention the staff at these places and the constant inhalation of smoke. Government intervention is necessary in some areas, and I think this is one of them. How long would it take for bars & restaurants in a city to get green? Maybe never. Maybe 3 years? That's different from the government stating, "7 months from today, no mas !"

 

 

So, let me get this straight. The government will make the decision for you so that you and your group won't have to? That's heavy but it is also ridiculous.

 

As for the workers, they too would have the choice to work in an establishment or not. So, you also believe the government should make THAT decision too?

 

You should read your post out loud to hear how ridiculous it really is. If you were a business owner you might understand.

 

Wow. Just wow.

[Brother Mango]

 

So, let me get this straight. The government will make the decision for you so that you and your group won't have to? That's heavy but it is also ridiculous. As for the workers, they too would have the choice to work in an establishment or not. So, you also believe the government should make THAT decision too? You should read your post out loud to hear how ridiculous it really is. If you were a business owner you might understand. Wow. Just wow.

 

 

I'm not taking your bait this time. I'll rephrase my position this way:

We all know that cigarette smoking is bad for smokers and non-smokers alike. If left to personal choice, there's economic incentive to keep up the health hazard. It's good for the government to take the role of bad guy and not only do they take the burden off of me in dealing with a friend, the gov't also takes the burden off of an establishment owner who'd like to ban smoking but doesn't want to be boycotted by smokers.

 

 

Hawkhuff, I think you're way out in the extremes with your personal choice argument. Can you offer examples of where you think it's reasonable for government to step in and force peoples' choices? I fear that your on the threshhold of saying we don't need a legal system or public policy because I should have the personal choice to park my car on some random lawn, shoot heroin in the public library and de-pants women in the grocery store.

[hawkhuff]

Hawkhuff, I think you're way out in the extremes with your personal choice argument. Can you offer examples of where you think it's reasonable for government to step in and force peoples' choices? I fear that your on the threshhold of saying we don't need a legal system or public policy because I should have the personal choice to park my car on some random lawn, shoot heroin in the public library and de-pants women in the grocery store.

 

I'll do a Craigv.

 

Where did I say "we don't need a legal system or public policy"?? You're imagining words I have never said.

 

Public policy, in your terms, appears to be taking away the ability of an individual to make a personal choice so you and the small business man is not construed to be the bad guy. It's all about feelings, isn't it? Do you know how whacked that sounds?

 

What kind of friends do you have that that kind of decision would cause hard feelings or worse? Think the government should be there to spare your feelings. Wow. Sounds infantile to me.

 

You're one imaginative dude, dude.

 

Again, you're obviously not a business owner.

 

You too have extreme ideas.