Smoking or not smoking

[Benji]

I don't smoke and am sorry to tell that I can't stand to be in the same room or place when someone's smoking. It makes me nauseas. There was no peer pressure on my side to try it once. But I stopped 2 of my friends from smoking ever again. So I hope I did the right thing... No, I KNOW I did the right thing

 

 

.....good for you, you did do the right thing!!

[wep363]

............Quiting smoking is easy, I've done it a hundred times.

Mark Twain

[Benji]

Mark Twain

 

 

...yeah, I quote him often, three can keep a secret, if two are dead! LOL

[NickolasJames8]

I have no tolerance for smoking of any kind. I don't care if it is cigarettes, cigars, pipes, pot, whatever. If you smoke it, my respect for you diminishes. This is for two big reasons. The first is that you are slowly killing yourself. The human lung was designed intake oxygen from the air you breathe, put it into your bloodstream to give strength to your muscles and other organs, and then take the end result (carbon dioxide) and expel it as you breathe out. The lung was in no way shape or form designed to handle chemical composition of cigarette, cigar, pipe, etc. smoke. It is for this reason then I have never smoked, and never will smoke.

 

The second reason is that you are slowly killing those around you. I mentioned that you expel carbon dioxide when you breathe out. We as humans cannot breathe in carbon dioxide, hence why our body expels it on the out-breath. When you smoke, you are also expelling some of the gasses in the smoke that did not reach the pleasure center of the brain. The people around you then have the pleasure of not only your carbon dioxide, but also the products of your damned smoking. This in turn leads to second-hand smoke (breathing in a smokers expulsion of nasty-ass air) which is another major killer of homo sapiens. It is for this reason that I also checked off not ever wanting to be in the same room as a smoker. It is for this reason that I applaud every single legislative body that creates laws forbidding smoking of any kind inside buildings (restaurants, bars, offices, stores, etc.). The next step of course is banning smoking within a certain distance of people (sending all smokers to Montana) and then the total banning of smoking altogether.

Not to mention the fact that smoking a cigarette is just as bad as automotive exhaust fumes on the environment. Don't even get me started on that.

If I have offended anyone by my remarks on smoking, GOOD!

 

I'm sure I have more to say, but I have class in seven minutes, so... kthxbai

 

 

I'm not offended by anything in your post, but I definitely disagree on the banning smoking part. Places of business have private owners who should be the one and only authority on whether or not people smoke in their buildings. If there's a place that allows smoking and I don't like it, I can go elsewhere. As long as it's privately owned, the government has no business deciding who can and can't smoke there.

[Graeme]

I'm not offended by anything in your post, but I definitely disagree on the banning smoking part. Places of business have private owners who should be the one and only authority on whether or not people smoke in their buildings. If there's a place that allows smoking and I don't like it, I can go elsewhere. As long as it's privately owned, the government has no business deciding who can and can't smoke there.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. There have been reported cases in the medical journals of non-smokers being affected by secondary smoke -- ie. smoke from smokers in the vicinity. An employee doesn't have the option of going elsewhere -- that is their place of employment. Finding another job isn't always an option, so they have to stay there. The employer has an obligation to provide a safe and healthy workplace, and that includes taking reasonable steps to prevent secondary smoke from affecting the health of their employees.

 

If there are no employees, or if all employees are smokers, then you have a point. Otherwise, no, the owner doesn't have the right to make decisions that can adversely affect the health of their employees.

[ashessnow]

I have no tolerance for smoking of any kind. I don't care if it is cigarettes, cigars, pipes, pot, whatever. If you smoke it, my respect for you diminishes. This is for two big reasons. The first is that you are slowly killing yourself. The human lung was designed intake oxygen from the air you breathe, put it into your bloodstream to give strength to your muscles and other organs, and then take the end result (carbon dioxide) and expel it as you breathe out. The lung was in no way shape or form designed to handle chemical composition of cigarette, cigar, pipe, etc. smoke. It is for this reason then I have never smoked, and never will smoke.

 

The second reason is that you are slowly killing those around you. I mentioned that you expel carbon dioxide when you breathe out. We as humans cannot breathe in carbon dioxide, hence why our body expels it on the out-breath. When you smoke, you are also expelling some of the gasses in the smoke that did not reach the pleasure center of the brain. The people around you then have the pleasure of not only your carbon dioxide, but also the products of your damned smoking. This in turn leads to second-hand smoke (breathing in a smokers expulsion of nasty-ass air) which is another major killer of homo sapiens. It is for this reason that I also checked off not ever wanting to be in the same room as a smoker. It is for this reason that I applaud every single legislative body that creates laws forbidding smoking of any kind inside buildings (restaurants, bars, offices, stores, etc.). The next step of course is banning smoking within a certain distance of people (sending all smokers to Montana) and then the total banning of smoking altogether.

 

Not to mention the fact that smoking a cigarette is just as bad as automotive exhaust fumes on the environment. Don't even get me started on that.

If I have offended anyone by my remarks on smoking, GOOD!

 

I'm sure I have more to say, but I have class in seven minutes, so... kthxbai

I think I disagree with most everything that you said.

[NickolasJames8]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. There have been reported cases in the medical journals of non-smokers being affected by secondary smoke -- ie. smoke from smokers in the vicinity. An employee doesn't have the option of going elsewhere -- that is their place of employment. Finding another job isn't always an option, so they have to stay there. The employer has an obligation to provide a safe and healthy workplace, and that includes taking reasonable steps to prevent secondary smoke from affecting the health of their employees.

 

If there are no employees, or if all employees are smokers, then you have a point. Otherwise, no, the owner doesn't have the right to make decisions that can adversely affect the health of their employees.

 

 

I'm not arguing that second hand smoke murders non-smokers. I'm just saying that if someone doesn't like it, they don't have to be there. As for employees, they can find another job if they don't like it. What if someone was working in a store that played rock music over the speakers and they didn't like it? It might not be a health risk, but what if it gave them impure thoughts? ( I know, you don't have to say it ) Should the government step in? Or should the person find another place to work? If it's a private business it's a private decision.

[Benji]

I'm not arguing that second hand smoke murders non-smokers. I'm just saying that if someone doesn't like it, they don't have to be there. As for employees, they can find another job if they don't like it. What if someone was working in a store that played rock music over the speakers and they didn't like it? It might not be a health risk, but what if it gave them impure thoughts? ( I know, you don't have to say it ) Should the government step in? Or should the person find another place to work? If it's a private business it's a private decision.

 

 

 

......I have to agree, the goverment has no business in restricting business owners rights in maintaining their practice's. In Vegas, (for sure sin-city) Taverns are a place for the 21 and older crowd, drinking, smoking and gambling. Some Taverns had sectioned off non-smoking areas completely seperated from the "Bar" area. Served food to familys who wanted to patronize breakfast, lunch etc. they brought in there kids (their choice). When the law was passed, the owners fought but lost, the results? Teenagers who worked that section were laid off, the restuarant was taken out, they built a "to go window" and will not allow the under 21 to enter anymore. Smokers won!

 

"What happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas" Someone forgot to tell OJ!

[Graeme]

As for employees, they can find another job if they don't like it.

This is my problem with your position. Finding another job isn't always as easy you make out. I know of someone who was out of work for months and almost lost his home as a consequence. In his case, he believes he lost his job because the boss's wife found out he's gay, though he can't prove that. He eventually found part-time employment elsewhere, with a good percentage of his wages going on the cost of travelling the long distance to the new place of work.

 

Finding another job when you're already employed has its own complications -- such as organising time off for job interviews, etc.

[LittleBuddhaTW]

I admit it, I'm a fairly heavy smoker (about a pack or so a day). I didn't smoke at all in high school, and only started when I first went to China when I was 20, and it seemed like everyone there smoked (I smoked this horrible non-filtered local brand called "Golden Monkey" ... they were pretty nasty).

 

When I was living in Taiwan, I was up to two packs a day, but am now down to about one per day, and I smoke Ultra Lights (I know, I know, they're still just as bad for me, but it helps me feel less guilty). There have been a number of VERY heavy smokers in my family (my grandmother smoked 3 packs a day), and not a one has had any problems from it. So, I guess I'm hedging my bets on the side of genetics ... again, bad idea, I know. I will quit one of these days ... maybe Sharon and I can do it together ...

[Benji]

This is my problem with your position. Finding another job isn't always as easy you make out. I know of someone who was out of work for months and almost lost his home as a consequence. In his case, he believes he lost his job because the boss's wife found out he's gay, though he can't prove that. He eventually found part-time employment elsewhere, with a good percentage of his wages going on the cost of travelling the long distance to the new place of work.

 

Finding another job when you're already employed has its own complications -- such as organising time off for job interviews, etc.

 

 

.........Unfortunately, the Taverns had to let these people go to comply with the new anti-smoking law.

[clumber]

I don't smoke and never will.... but to be perfectly honest I'm not too bothered about people who do smoke. I mean, its their choice and none of my business.

[NickolasJames8]

This is my problem with your position. Finding another job isn't always as easy you make out. I know of someone who was out of work for months and almost lost his home as a consequence. In his case, he believes he lost his job because the boss's wife found out he's gay, though he can't prove that. He eventually found part-time employment elsewhere, with a good percentage of his wages going on the cost of travelling the long distance to the new place of work.

 

Finding another job when you're already employed has its own complications -- such as organising time off for job interviews, etc.

 

I understand what you're saying, but freedom of choice should be universal. I mean, if we have the government telling us that we can't allow smoking in private buisinesses, what's next? Are they going to tell people how much they can eat? Or what vitamins to take? If you give a little bit a freedom away, it doesn't seem so bad. Then, you give a little more, then a little more. Before you know it, there are no more freedoms. I'd rather let people decide for themselves what they want to allow in their businesses than the government.

[Benji]

I understand what you're saying, but freedom of choice should be universal. I mean, if we have the government telling us that we can't allow smoking in private buisinesses, what's next? Are they going to tell people how much they can eat? Or what vitamins to take? If you give a little bit a freedom away, it doesn't seem so bad. Then, you give a little more, then a little more. Before you know it, there are no more freedoms. I'd rather let people decide for themselves what they want to allow in their businesses than the government.

 

 

........Zactly! Fat kids....No more transfat! ......Overactive kid? give him some retlin! courtesy of the school who can't handle overactive kids because no more recess!

[Graeme]

.........Unfortunately, the Taverns had to let these people go to comply with the new anti-smoking law.

When similar legislation was proposed here in Melbourne, a similar argument was made -- that it would result in a loss of jobs. While there was some unemployment as a consequence, it was not significant. The massive unemployment that was predicted didn't eventuate. Now, I will admit that the culture and circumstances in Melbourne are very different to the Taverns in Las Vegas, but I just wanted to point out that the problem wasn't universal. Also, if they had to let people under 21 go, that implies that it also opened up employment for people over 21 to replace those people let go.

 

I understand what you're saying, but freedom of choice should be universal. I mean, if we have the government telling us that we can't allow smoking in private buisinesses, what's next? Are they going to tell people how much they can eat? Or what vitamins to take? If you give a little bit a freedom away, it doesn't seem so bad. Then, you give a little more, then a little more. Before you know it, there are no more freedoms. I'd rather let people decide for themselves what they want to allow in their businesses than the government.

There is a fine balancing act here that has been going on for centuries. Taking an extreme position, coal mining companies should therefore be allowed to employ young children to work in their mines under freedom of choice (as they did back in the 1800s). Employers should be allowed to make employees work with asbestos. Employers should be allowed to make people work without safety gear (saving huge amounts of money).

 

A lot of workers would refuse to work under those circumstances, but some wouldn't have a choice. When you have a family to support, you can't afford to stand on principle -- you need an income to put food on the table, and to keep a roof over your head.

 

Employers are a lot more powerful than individual workers. They can dictate terms that workers either have to accept or be unemployed. To counteract this, the government and unions work to make things fair. The balance point is rarely maintained -- it tends to drift one way or another -- but in the long term it tends to be fair.

 

Some things the government should not be involved with. For others, they should. Where the line gets drawn is personal opinion and not everyone agrees. Until the secondary smoke issue was identified, I was happy that the government should stay out of the issue of smoking at work. Once it was identified that workers ARE getting sick because of secondary smoke, then I'm happy that the government had the right, and the obligation, to step in. This is a personal opinion and I accept that not everyone agrees.

 

Adults should have the right to do what they want to themselves. It is when what they do impacts on those around them that governments should consider getting involved.

[NickolasJames8]

When similar legislation was proposed here in Melbourne, a similar argument was made -- that it would result in a loss of jobs. While there was some unemployment as a consequence, it was not significant. The massive unemployment that was predicted didn't eventuate. Now, I will admit that the culture and circumstances in Melbourne are very different to the Taverns in Las Vegas, but I just wanted to point out that the problem wasn't universal. Also, if they had to let people under 21 go, that implies that it also opened up employment for people over 21 to replace those people let go.

There is a fine balancing act here that has been going on for centuries. Taking an extreme position, coal mining companies should therefore be allowed to employ young children to work in their mines under freedom of choice (as they did back in the 1800s). Employers should be allowed to make employees work with asbestos. Employers should be allowed to make people work without safety gear (saving huge amounts of money).

 

A lot of workers would refuse to work under those circumstances, but some wouldn't have a choice. When you have a family to support, you can't afford to stand on principle -- you need an income to put food on the table, and to keep a roof over your head.

 

Employers are a lot more powerful than individual workers. They can dictate terms that workers either have to accept or be unemployed. To counteract this, the government and unions work to make things fair. The balance point is rarely maintained -- it tends to drift one way or another -- but in the long term it tends to be fair.

 

Some things the government should not be involved with. For others, they should. Where the line gets drawn is personal opinion and not everyone agrees. Until the secondary smoke issue was identified, I was happy that the government should stay out of the issue of smoking at work. Once it was identified that workers ARE getting sick because of secondary smoke, then I'm happy that the government had the right, and the obligation, to step in. This is a personal opinion and I accept that not everyone agrees.

 

Adults should have the right to do what they want to themselves. It is when what they do impacts on those around them that governments should consider getting involved.

 

I can see your point about working conditions, but let's not get too far off topic. If you're a business owner, then you get to decide the working conditions ( to a degree) of your business. Still, I think that allowing smoking and asking someone to risk their lives by working with dynamite and matches are two different things. Look at it this way.....

What if you owned a cafe and almost all of your regulars smoked? They came in and got coffee, read the paper and sucked a couple cancer sticks down in the process. Now the government comes along and says, No, you can't do that anymore because it's not fair to those who don't smoke. Who are they to say that you can't let your customers do what they normally do? I hate cigarrette smoke as much as the next person, but I can't think of one situation where it sould be restricted by the government.

[Benji]

I can see your point about working conditions, but let's not get too far off topic. If you're a business owner, then you get to decide the working conditions ( to a degree) of your business. Still, I think that allowing smoking and asking someone to risk their lives by working with dynamite and matches are two different things. Look at it this way.....

What if you owned a cafe and almost all of your regulars smoked? They came in and got coffee, read the paper and sucked a couple cancer sticks down in the process. Now the government comes along and says, No, you can't do that anymore because it's not fair to those who don't smoke. Who are they to say that you can't let your customers do what they normally do? I hate cigarrette smoke as much as the next person, but I can't think of one situation where it sould be restricted by the government.

 

 

...........That's exactly what happened, the Taverns lost 65%-80% of their business.

[Graeme]

What if you owned a cafe and almost all of your regulars smoked? They came in and got coffee, read the paper and sucked a couple cancer sticks down in the process. Now the government comes along and says, No, you can't do that anymore because it's not fair to those who don't smoke. Who are they to say that you can't let your customers do what they normally do? I hate cigarrette smoke as much as the next person, but I can't think of one situation where it sould be restricted by the government.

In Australia, the argument was not about the customers (who can freely choose to be there) but the other workers. A non-smoking worker in that cafe is being exposed to secondary smoke on a daily basis, and that has an impact on their health -- and THAT is why the laws were changed here in Australia.

 

We're not getting off topic -- the smoking ban is NOT about the rights of people to smoke. It is about the rights of others to enjoy a healthy work environment.

[NickolasJames8]

In Australia, the argument was not about the customers (who can freely choose to be there) but the other workers. A non-smoking worker in that cafe is being exposed to secondary smoke on a daily basis, and that has an impact on their health -- and THAT is why the laws were changed here in Australia.

 

We're not getting off topic -- the smoking ban is NOT about the rights of people to smoke. It is about the rights of others to enjoy a healthy work environment.

 

I would say that the people who work there can choose freely to not be there. I understand that it's not convienient for them, but there are other places to work. I also don't think it's about the right of people to smoke...it's about the right of individual business owners to allow smoking in the business that they built and the building that they own (or rent). What if the government said no smoking in your house because others living with you are affected?

[Benji]

In Australia, the argument was not about the customers (who can freely choose to be there) but the other workers. A non-smoking worker in that cafe is being exposed to secondary smoke on a daily basis, and that has an impact on their health -- and THAT is why the laws were changed here in Australia.

 

We're not getting off topic -- the smoking ban is NOT about the rights of people to smoke. It is about the rights of others to enjoy a healthy work environment.

 

 

......Sorry to disagree once again, if I owned a Tavern and my customers want to smoke, drink and gamble {What they have been doing for 80 years} Then thats what my business is about. I hire people that know the conditions, as I stated before the non-smoking sections are real partioned off well from the bar area, now they could go across the street (All other restaurants are non-smoking, sic Denny's). The real shame is that these Taverns let go 8 people per business, they had 8 Taverns, most were High Schooler's. So the smokers won, no kids allowed, no food served. Where is the right of employment?

[Graeme]

I would say that the people who work there can choose freely to not be there. I understand that it's not convienient for them, but there are other places to work. I also don't think it's about the right of people to smoke...it's about the right of individual business owners to allow smoking in the business that they built and the building that they own (or rent). What if the government said no smoking in your house because others living with you are affected?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree regarding how easy it can be to find alternate employment.

 

On the issue of smoking at home, that's an even better potential example. Do you believe that someone should have the right to smoke at home when there is an asthmatic toddler in the house? One of my sons has been in an ambulance three times because of severe asthma attacks. If smoke triggered attacks, I would fight anyone who believed they had a right to smoke in my home when he's around. This is hypothetical -- his asthma is not triggered by smoke, though some people do have asthma triggered by smoke.

 

To make it clearer, the example I'm using is someone who lives in that home -- maybe even the "owner". I've seen and heard of enough examples where a "parent" shows little, if any, responsibility to their children. In this example, the smoker is potentially putting the life of a child at risk by their actions. Is their "right to smoke" stronger than the rights of that child?

[Graeme]

......Sorry to disagree once again, if I owned a Tavern and my customers want to smoke, drink and gamble {What they have been doing for 80 years} Then thats what my business is about. I hire people that know the conditions, as I stated before the non-smoking sections are real partioned off well from the bar area, now they could go across the street (All other restaurants are non-smoking, sic Denny's). The real shame is that these Taverns let go 8 people per business, they had 8 Taverns, most were High Schooler's. So the smokers won, no kids allowed, no food served. Where is the right of employment?

I don't know enough of the details to be able to comment properly. I said above that there is a balancing act, and the balancing act isn't perfect. I will concede that in in this particular case it may have gone too far, but I can't say that without a lot more information.

 

Unfortunately, I have found that while most employers are reasonable, there are employers that take advantage of their workers. Legislation to bring the rogue elements into line can have an adverse impact on those who have been doing the right thing. This is unfortunate, but it is hard to write legislation that is that precisely targeted. It's a case of a minority messing things up for the majority.

[NickolasJames8]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree regarding how easy it can be to find alternate employment.

 

On the issue of smoking at home, that's an even better potential example. Do you believe that someone should have the right to smoke at home when there is an asthmatic toddler in the house? One of my sons has been in an ambulance three times because of severe asthma attacks. If smoke triggered attacks, I would fight anyone who believed they had a right to smoke in my home when he's around. This is hypothetical -- his asthma is not triggered by smoke, though some people do have asthma triggered by smoke.

 

To make it clearer, the example I'm using is someone who lives in that home -- maybe even the "owner". I've seen and heard of enough examples where a "parent" shows little, if any, responsibility to their children. In this example, the smoker is potentially putting the life of a child at risk by their actions. Is their "right to smoke" stronger than the rights of that child?

As the parent, that choice has to be up to you. If there's some kind of neglect, then the government would have to step in. But that example is unique. What about all households with children? Or all households in general? Would you support a smoking ban in those cases? The wife or husband is married to a smoker, and it would be hard to just leave them. Or what about kids? They don't have much of a choice. How far should the government reach?

[Benji]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree regarding how easy it can be to find alternate employment.

 

On the issue of smoking at home, that's an even better potential example. Do you believe that someone should have the right to smoke at home when there is an asthmatic toddler in the house? One of my sons has been in an ambulance three times because of severe asthma attacks. If smoke triggered attacks, I would fight anyone who believed they had a right to smoke in my home when he's around. This is hypothetical -- his asthma is not triggered by smoke, though some people do have asthma triggered by smoke.

 

To make it clearer, the example I'm using is someone who lives in that home -- maybe even the "owner". I've seen and heard of enough examples where a "parent" shows little, if any, responsibility to their children. In this example, the smoker is potentially putting the life of a child at risk by their actions. Is their "right to smoke" stronger than the rights of that child?

 

 

............Aye! We shall agree to disagree, your point is well taken, I never smoked around children, even in my own home. Sadly, I too have seen "so-called parents" that neglet their children in this fashion.

[JamesSavik]

Let's play what if.

 

OK- smoking is banned in all public places by and act of congress and a note from the surgeon general.

 

Consider this very carefully: who is to decide what is good for you? The senate? An industry panal?

 

What's next? What other products will be banned or freedoms recended because it's not good for you?

 

Will beef be bannned because of cholesterol? Will sugar be banned because its bad for your teeth? Will guns be banned because they hurt people? Will homosexuality be banned because you could catch HIV?

 

Before we fix the behavior of others, we should consider which of our behaviors others might seek to fix and if we should grant others such powers over us.