First U.s. City To Ban All Smoking

[nairi]

I still don't think laws are going to help. If we want people to be more conscious of the bad health that cigarettes cause, we need to continue to educate. This includes minimizing glamorization of cigarette smokers, in films, in commercials, in general. This does not need to be done by law, but by people themselves. For instance: although I'm not a big fan, I do think Sodenberg did a great job with "Ocean's Eleven" by showing that a traditional bank robbery film can also be made without the use of violence and bloodshed. In the same way, others can show how you can be "cool" without needing to smoke.

 

As for the rest of us who are already hooked: sorry Storms, but I must disagree with you here. Your boyfriend is one in a million. He should take care of his own. For all I care he can build his own restaurant where they serve inhalors with every meal, but I still want to enjoy a nice drag from my cigarette after a nice meal over a cup of tea in a cozy restaurant.

 

So here's a redundant case. Nowadays, we're no longer allowed to smoke at train stations, except for the designated areas. On the platforms, this designated area is a pole around which all the smokers are expected to huddle. So one day I was waiting for the train and walked to the far end of the platform to find me one of them totem poles. By the time I actually reached the pole, I had left all the other waiting commuters far behind me, i.e. there was NO ONE else around in a 500 meter radius. Just a few steps from the pole, there are seats, and since there was no one around, I decided to sit down and have a smoke, which is always more pleasant than standing up. Anyway, I'd barely sat down and lit my cigarette, when TWO platform officers started walking towards me. I was already close to finishing my cig when they finally reached me just to tell me that I had to walk back three steps and stand next to the designated pole or I would be fined (and to never commit this crime again).

[DominO123]

I still don't think laws are going to help. If we want people to be more conscious of the bad health that cigarettes cause, we need to continue to educate. This includes minimizing glamorization of cigarette smokers, in films, in commercials, in general. This does not need to be done by law, but by people themselves. For instance: although I'm not a big fan, I do think Sodenberg did a great job with "Ocean's Eleven" by showing that a traditional bank robbery film can also be made without the use of violence and bloodshed. In the same way, others can show how you can be "cool" without needing to smoke.

 

As for the rest of us who are already hooked: sorry Storms, but I must disagree with you here. Your boyfriend is one in a million. He should take care of his own. For all I care he can build his own restaurant where they serve inhalors with every meal, but I still want to enjoy a nice drag from my cigarette after a nice meal over a cup of tea in a cozy restaurant.

 

So here's a redundant case. Nowadays, we're no longer allowed to smoke at train stations, except for the designated areas. On the platforms, this designated area is a pole around which all the smokers are expected to huddle. So one day I was waiting for the train and walked to the far end of the platform to find me one of them totem poles. By the time I actually reached the pole, I had left all the other waiting commuters far behind me, i.e. there was NO ONE else around in a 500 meter radius. Just a few steps from the pole, there are seats, and since there was no one around, I decided to sit down and have a smoke, which is always more pleasant than standing up. Anyway, I'd barely sat down and lit my cigarette, when TWO platform officers started walking towards me. I was already close to finishing my cig when they finally reached me just to tell me that I had to walk back three steps and stand next to the designated pole or I would be fined (and to never commit this crime again).

 

I entirly agree with your first point, education is the best way to go, but unfortunitly not enough.

 

I disagree that her boyfriend represents one out of a million. Children having asthma in industrialised countries represent over 5% of the children, in populated cities it is sometimes even 40% of the children population who have some form of asthma. Tabacco triggers a crises, and this is just one example of condition triggered by tabacco and there are many others. Also, you must make the distinction between something being criminal and illegal, it is not a crime to smoke in restricted places I don't know of any country, provinces, states who has a law making it criminal. It is illegal sure, but not criminal.

 

In restorants it is not non-smokers who should change their place for need of good air, thinking this is simply selfish. I am all for laws about indoor smoking, for me there is not question about whatever or not there should be such laws. My problem is about outdoor smoking, beside areas of public gathering, I don't see why smoking should be restricted. It is foolish to restrict smoking in every corner of a street when cars continue throwing their pollutants, it is not like tobacco is contributing in global warming. Ideally there should be no such laws because people should be mature, intelligent enough to know if they will be causing hatm to others or maybe that others don't want to have tobacco fume all over their face and lung. Ideally, there should not be laws restricting murder too. But we do not live in an ideal world.

 

About the police threatning you, I agree that if you do not cause harm to anyone else than yourself, you should not be restricted smoking in a public place when there is no one near you. Laws are here for a purpouses, and if there is no one else beside you, there is no purpouses on restricting you.

Edited December 10, 2006 by QueBeceR

[DominO123]

Some clarification, I skipped some part.

 

The p, I brough was the measurement that the differences between the two samples is due to chance, and correlation is the assessment of measure about the increase of one bring the increase of the condition of lets say x. I just added this so that there is no misunderstanding on what p really means.

[Anonymouse]

A jury is selected from people that there is no reasonable doubt questioning their impartiality. I don't see why it should be otherwise in any scientific study. It is OK to be financed, but that the research was not financed by the same organization who was previously financing him should be enough to request answers, more particularly when other researchers have found link between tobacco and lung cancer using the same samples he has used. Being biased is one thing, introducing biases in the research is another, he is accused of both.

 

Note how he states accused of both. Of course he is accused. Any time there are head on collisions in academia or the scientific establishment its common practice for one or both sides to jumpstart the logical fallacies. I don't see how this helps your case aside from using it as an effective tarbrush.

 

And as a caveat, jurors are stupid and because juries sway one way over the other does not necessarily mean it is in good faith or common sense.

[nairi]

In restorants it is not non-smokers who should change their place for need of good air, thinking this is simply selfish. I am all for laws about indoor smoking, for me there is not question about whatever or not there should be such laws. My problem is about outdoor smoking, beside areas of public gathering, I don't see why smoking should be restricted. It is foolish to restrict smoking in every corner of a street when cars continue throwing their pollutants, it is not like tobacco is contributing in global warming. Ideally there should be no such laws because people should be mature, intelligent enough to know if they will be causing hatm to others or maybe that others don't want to have tobacco fume all over their face and lung. Ideally, there should not be laws restricting murder too. But we do not live in an ideal world.

 

See, I think restaurant, bar, and other pub owners should have the right to decide for themselves, as should consumers.

[Anonymouse]

See, I think restaurant, bar, and other pub owners should have the right to decide for themselves, as should consumers.

 

Quoted for truth.

[DominO123]

Note how he states accused of both. Of course he is accused. Any time there are head on collisions in academia or the scientific establishment its common practice for one or both sides to jumpstart the logical fallacies. I don't see how this helps your case aside from using it as an effective tarbrush.

 

And as a caveat, jurors are stupid and because juries sway one way over the other does not necessarily mean it is in good faith or common sense.

 

Whatever you say, from experience I know that entering in an argument with you is a total waste of time.

[DominO123]

See, I think restaurant, bar, and other pub owners should have the right to decide for themselves, as should consumers.

 

I agree with you here, but only for bars.

[Anoushik]

And on a final note, what does me being an anarchist have anything to do with the coherence or lack of coherence of your argument? Is me being an anarchist the cause of your empty argument? Is me being an anarchist a cause of you not substantiating the claims you make? Is me being an anarchist responsible for your overly controlling mentality seeking to impose your model ways on others? Why don't you go find a hobby. We can eliminate health nazis if we found a hobby for them. Here. You and Stormtrooper can play.

 

http://oaktreeent.com/misc/web_photos/Games/Operation_Game_1965_Milton-Bradley_4545_web.jpg

You know Anon, I've never been in an argument with you before. Why all this hostility? If this is what arguing with you means, then I'd better stay away from it. A couple of years back I might have had the energy or the passion to argue just to make my point, but now I don't have the time.

[Takoush]

You know Anon, I've never been in an argument with you before. Why all this hostility? If this is what arguing with you means, then I'd better stay away from it. A couple of years back I might have had the energy or the passion to argue just to make my point, but now I don't have the time.

You know Anoushik, I think it's because Stormtrooper argued so vehemently first with me then with Anon that he started losing his patience. That's why.

[Anonymouse]

And plus, I'm usually grumpy around finals.

[nairi]

I agree with you here, but only for bars.

 

What, you mean I have no right to open a restaurant where customers can eat tar-ridden food and inhale intoxicated air if that is their demand? You don't need to eat there, in the same way that I avoid air-conditioned restaurants, Armenian weddings, and a host of other things that give me chills or make me feel uncomfortable and out-of-place.

[Anileve]

I have to say, this is the first time I've heard of allergy to perfumes - not because it is impossible but because it seems so unlikely - and I strongly suspect a signal to something fishy in that product. Even if you don't contemplate asking for ban of certain perfumes, it is likely that someone else might check out what's in it and do exactly that or something else. That it causes symptoms in some and not in others is no guarantee that it's safe. As a rule of thumb, one should observe the limitations that certain people have in their health to form a guideline as to what should be regulated (and by "regulated" I don't mean as in law, duh) in their diet or living conditions or what have you. Products can end up being taken off the shelf on that basis. It's not unusual and it's not the end of the world or a shame upon humanity....

 

Just some proof that there was a ban in restaurants only. Christian Dior's "Poison" also had the same fate.

Eighties was put together, its components included the big-hitting Hollywood perfume of the decade, Giorgio Beverly Hills, once banned from restaurants because of its power to obliterate the aroma of food.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23...2197745,00.html

 

I am allergic to Elizabeth Arden's "Sunflowers," I start sneezing uncontrollably. Some others make me nauseous. I am not the only person who has that reaction to certain fragrances. Frankly, if the gov. decided to impose a ban, I would be one of the first to object.

 

There are sooo many things to complain about, if we only started restructuring the world based on our individual needs and pretensions.... By the way, you breathe in pollution without any cigarette smoke if you live in an industrialized, cosmopolitan city. There aren't many medical cases where the cause of death was "inhalation of pollution." If people don't like the dynamic of a bustling city, there is an option of living in peace and quiet, and fresh air of the world's underrated jungles and woods.

[DominO123]

What, you mean I have no right to open a restaurant where customers can eat tar-ridden food and inhale intoxicated air if that is their demand? You don't need to eat there, in the same way that I avoid air-conditioned restaurants, Armenian weddings, and a host of other things that give me chills or make me feel uncomfortable and out-of-place.

 

Nairi, it is physically possible for a smoker to leave smoking for a hour while he/she eat in a restorant, while someone having asthma, while he/she may want to eat in a restorant full of smoke he/she can't. This mentality of, if the smoker don't want he can go away is what I hate. Freedom stops when it reaches the freedom of another person. I don't think we are all interested here in creating ghettos, restorants for smokers and those for non-smokers, this is financially worst for the holder than having a restorant for non smoker, where the smoker could go out to have his/her smoke and come back.

[DominO123]

Just some proof that there was a ban in restaurants only. Christian Dior's "Poison" also had the same fate.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23...2197745,00.html

 

I am allergic to Elizabeth Arden's "Sunflowers," I start sneezing uncontrollably. Some others make me nauseous. I am not the only person who has that reaction to certain fragrances. Frankly, if the gov. decided to impose a ban, I would be one of the first to object.

 

There are sooo many things to complain about, if we only started restructuring the world based on our individual needs and pretensions.... By the way, you breathe in pollution without any cigarette smoke if you live in an industrialized, cosmopolitan city. There aren't many medical cases where the cause of death was "inhalation of pollution." If people don't like the dynamic of a bustling city, there is an option of living in peace and quiet, and fresh air of the world's underrated jungles and woods.

 

I don't think this is really an allergic reaction, those are really molecules with very low ppm in air reaching your nouse, it could be the smell of it that gives you that reaction though.

 

I have the same problem you have, added with a bad migraine.

[nairi]

Domino, the question is: why should restaurant owners be forced to open a certain restaurant by law? If they financially go into ruin, then that is their problem. And no, I like to have my cigarette AT THE TABLE, after dinner, and not outside in the pouring rain and freezing cold. Why should I, as a smoker, not have the right to enjoy a meal at a restaurant in the same way that a non-smoker can? There already is segragation between smokers and non-smokers, mostly because smokers are being excommunicated left and right by non-smokers. Are we to lose that last bit of freedom as well? Heck, no one is stopping you from opening a smoke-free restaurant, so why should you stop smokers from building their own hang-out spots? I think smokers have been lenient enough.

[DominO123]

Fadi, the question is: why should restaurant owners be forced to open a certain restaurant by law? If they financially go into ruin, then that is their problem. And no, I like to have my cigarette AT THE TABLE, after dinner, and not outside in the pouring rain and freezing cold. Why should I, as a smoker, not have the right to enjoy a meal at a restaurant in the same way that a non-smoker can? There already is segragation between smokers and non-smokers, mostly because smokers are being excommunicated left and right by non-smokers. Are we to lose that last bit of freedom as well? Heck, no one is stopping you from opening a smoke-free restaurant, so why should you stop smokers from building their own hang-out spots? I think smokers have been lenient enough.

 

Oh come on, we passed a law here in Montreal about smoking in public places, at first restorant owners were troubled about losing money, this is not what statistics are showing. As for your second point. You are the one comming the act, not the non-smokers. Non-smoking is not an act, when the act of freedom limit the freedom of another it stop being a freedom.

 

Will you seriously stop going in restorants?

[nairi]

Will you seriously stop going in restorants?

 

I don't think the experience would be as pleasant. I live in Europe, where we wait half an hour to get our meal and stay for another three hours after the meal. I'll probably only be going in the summer, that is, if we are allowed to smoke on the terrace of the restaurant!

[Azat]

Domino,

I want to open up a high end restaurant that caters to the smoking public. If non smokers want to come they are welcome but they cannot complain. Am I allowed to do this? No... Because the government tells me that I cant. The question I have is who the hell is the government to tell me how I should run my own place that I use my own money to build. Why do we think that the public at large is not smart enough to decide for themselves if going to a place with smoke is good or bad for themselves. Why should the government be the one telling us how to live out own lives.

Edited December 11, 2006 by Azat

[DominO123]

I don't think the experience would be as pleasant. I live in Europe, where we wait half an hour to get our meal and stay for another three hours after the meal. I'll probably only be going in the summer, that is, if we are allowed to smoke on the terrace of the restaurant!

 

Hmmm. I agree, it could be problematic. I don't know what to say, can you not bring some nicotine patch or gum with you?

[DominO123]

Fadi,

I want to open up a high end restaurant that caters to the smoking public. If non smokers want to come they are welcome but they cannot complain. Am I allowed to do this? No... Because the government tells me that I cant. The question I have is who the hell is the government to tell me how I should run my own place that I use my own money to build. Why do we think that the public at large is not smart enough to decide for themselves if going to a place with smoke is good or bad for themselves. Why should the government be the one telling us how to live out own lives.

 

If the place is for adults, excluding children, the government should have no say, this is why I told Nairi that I agree about bars. But if you open such a place, you should check the statistics, there is no significant losses by opening a place restricting smoking, so the financial issue could not much justify it.

[Stormig]

See, I think restaurant, bar, and other pub owners should have the right to decide for themselves, as should consumers.

On that note I agree, as long as the restaurants as well are 18+, plus with plenty of deterrents to open up such a smokers' establishment so it doesn't get out of control, retrogress from where things are today. Please refer to a previous post: http://hyeforum.com/index.php?s=&showt...st&p=182268 That way every crowd can be satisfied.

[Stormig]

Just some proof that there was a ban in restaurants only. Christian Dior's "Poison" also had the same fate.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23...2197745,00.html

 

I am allergic to Elizabeth Arden's "Sunflowers," I start sneezing uncontrollably. Some others make me nauseous. I am not the only person who has that reaction to certain fragrances. Frankly, if the gov. decided to impose a ban, I would be one of the first to object.

 

There are sooo many things to complain about, if we only started restructuring the world based on our individual needs and pretensions.... By the way, you breathe in pollution without any cigarette smoke if you live in an industrialized, cosmopolitan city. There aren't many medical cases where the cause of death was "inhalation of pollution." If people don't like the dynamic of a bustling city, there is an option of living in peace and quiet, and fresh air of the world's underrated jungles and woods.

I think that asking people with health concerns not of their own making to move elsewhere is much less feasible, realistic, and fair than asking others to limit the practice of their choices. Some will inevitably move, but my boyfriend and others like him moving out into the country because he reacts so adversely to cigarette smoke? That, and not asking smokers not to smoke on the street, I think, is what is way over the top.

[hosank]

personal liberty ends where that of another begins.

 

so obviously, if smoking in a crouded area, where it is proven that it is directly harming those around you, then you have violated the liberty of the people around you.

but, at the same time, if a person who does not smoke goes into an area in full knowledge of the smoking activity there and aware that it may harm him, it is his fault.

 

banning smoking in the streets? why don't they just ban cars? they pollute more then cigarettes and are a hundred times more harmful.

 

the government can't just tell people what to do and not do.

i say, we go on a continent-wide anti-hippie rampage!

[Aubépine]

Right on point. Those who advocate such a ban are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. It's no business of the government to tell people how to behave and what to do. This coming from someone who is a non-smoker and can't stand cigarette smoke at all. It almost makes me sick, especially when you are standing in a line or waiting for a bus here and can't evade it. Banning it won't teach those people manners and rules of common courtesy.

 

The same goes for car exhaust, but you don't hear anyone advocating the banning of cars and what not. Banning cigarettes in restaurants and bars is even more silly. I'm all for restricting it and clearly defining smokers and non-smokers areas. Those who want to can establish their exclusive non-smoker restaurants and I'll gladly join in. But I hate it when fascists masquarade as liberals all in the name of the public good.