"Big Tobacco"

[Swift]

Well if you say so, that might be right. Still it is a difference imo. the carcinogens are the problem, but if they are comined with fumes and other scientific terms I could say in German but not in English they get much easier access into your body(lungs to be specific, the dust will settle down in the alveoles together with the carciongens etc) than the substances in the Martini, that are more likely to move out of the room before you inhalate them and let's face it, the Martini comes out of the bottle and is consumed within a few minutes, so only a small part reacts with air. So what you pointed out is more or less scientific theory, whereas passive smoking really is a problem.
Don't get me wrong, I did not read anything about the Martini problem, but I highly doubt that the effective carcinogens reach a relevant amount under normal circumstances or am I wrong ? I know you guys from biochemistry, you love your mol/l calculations, but don't you forget physiology...

Uh...you go to a bar. There's a bunch of people drinking all kinds of drinks including martini. Most times you don't just down a martini. So, it sits there for a bit, giving off carcinogens(that you said are the problem) and the next one does the same and so on.

If we're going to say that a certain amount of carcinogens are ok and others aren't then what's the point? If an alcoholic beverage gives off more airbone carcinogens then a cigarette, why is that cigarettes are getting such a bad rap?

In other words, your entire post is a contradiction by definition. What Famine said isn't a theory, it's a scientific fact.

 

[F1GTR]

It's not the carcinogens that are the problem with smoking, it's the smell and annoyance the smoke causes.

 

[Carl.]

I've never had my clothes, hair and skin impregnated by the smell of alcohol when coming home (unless it was spilled on them)....

 

[Swift]

But you're doing exactly the same, just on the opposite side. Hearing ad nauseum how our government is intrinsicallyt evil in all it does (except when cutting tax or fighting for capitalism / freedom / democracy) is getting mighty tiresome.

You're saying our "big government" is always getting more and more into regulating my life and telling me what I can't do?

How is it then, that in the last years my own governemnt, whichi is considered way more left-leaning than yours, has also:

• Allowed gay marriages
• Lifted restrictions on private swinger clubs.
• Lifted restrictions on adult clubs (strippers).
• Were considering legalizing prostitution (not sure if that has been dropped)
• Opened the door for private healthcare (it was only allowed for diagnostics before)
• Were about to decriminalize pot (before the Conservatives got in...)

These are off the top of my head, there's more...

No, the government isn't an evil entity on a power trip to control every aspects of our lives. It tries to make rational decisions on a case by case basis. Sometimes that means restricting some freedoms we had before (like driving after you had 10 beers), and at other times this means giving more freedom we didn't have before (like allowing gay people marriages/ civil unions).

LOL, the government is not DESIGNED to be an evil entity on a power trip but it is quickly becoming that. In our society, the people are supposed to have the power. We live in a free market society. To ban legal activity on private property negates this freedom. No if smoking is illegal then no problem, but if it's legal, who is the government to tell me that I can't have someone smoke in my store or restaurant? Or even my house that is 25 yards from someone elses house?(That one still gets me).

I'm not doing the "same" I'm saying people take responsibility for themselves. Period. Don't blame the government or the restaurant owner that you visited 2 years ago and now you have lung cancer. That's stupid. If you don't like smoke, don't go where people smoke. Wow! What a concept. I hate it when I walk past someone smoking on the street, but I get over it because it's a free country and as long as they are not blowing the smoke in my face, I have zero right to complain.

 

[Scaff]

This thread makes me want to take up smoking again.

However heres an interesting one.

The air quality of airline flights has got far lower since smoking was banned on flights.

When you could smoke on flights the airlines were forced to make sure the cabin air was regularly cleaned, scrubed and changed (often many times a minute). However since smoking bans on flights this has been massively reduced, resulting in a reduction in air quality and a massive money saving for the airlines.

So next time you go on a flight and end up with a sore throat, remember its all the fault of the anti-smoking brigade.

For the record I loved smoking and only gave up 'cos my kids nagged me.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Carl.]

LOL, the government is not DESIGNED to be an evil entity on a power trip but it is quickly becoming that. In our society, the people are supposed to have the power. We live in a free market society. To ban legal activity on private property negates this freedom. No if smoking is illegal then no problem, but if it's legal, who is the government to tell me that I can't have someone smoke in my store or restaurant? Or even my house that is 25 yards from someone elses house?(That one still gets me).

I'm not doing the "same" I'm saying people take responsibility for themselves. Period. Don't blame the government or the restaurant owner that you visited 2 years ago and now you have lung cancer. That's stupid. If you don't like smoke, don't go where people smoke. Wow! What a concept. I hate it when I walk past someone smoking on the street, but I get over it because it's a free country and as long as they are not blowing the smoke in my face, I have zero right to complain.

Smoking in restaurant has been "free market regulated" since the first time I ever went to a restaurant. In my experience, over 95% of the restaurants didn't have any sort of adequate separation between smoking areas. I never actually saw a non-smoking restaurant before, since not a single restaurant owner wanted to take the risk of losing a chunk of his clientele to a competitor that would allow smoking.

Result? I was left with the choice between:

A - Not going to restaurants.
B - Going at a restaurant and breathe cigarette smoke.

Great!! All that to allow a fraction of the people to satisfy their craving for nicotine anywhere, anytime, as they see fit. Does it remove some freedom smokers had before? Sure. Does it mean that we're heading down on a slippery slope towards total government control? No. See above. The real quesion is: In that specific case, does the benefits gained outweight the freedoms removed?

 

[Swift]

Smoking in restaurant has been "free market regulated" since the first time I ever went to a restaurant. In my experience, over 95% of the restaurants didn't have any sort of adequate separation between smoking areas. I never actually saw a non-smoking restaurant before, since not a single restaurant owner wanted to take the risk of losing a chunk of his clientele to a competitor that would allow smoking.

Result? I was left with the choice between:

A - Not going to restaurants.
B - Going at a restaurant and breathe cigarette smoke.

Great!! All that to allow a fraction of the people to satisfy their craving for nicotine anywhere, anytime, as they see fit. Does it remove some freedom smokers had before? Sure. Does it mean that we're heading down on a slippery slope towards total government control? No. See above. The real quesion is: In that specific case, does the benefits gained outweight the freedoms removed?

So you're saying it's fine to infringe on the rights of other's as long as you can do what you want?

 

[Zrow]

How is it then, that in the last years my own governemnt, whichi is considered way more left-leaning than yours, has also:

• Allowed gay marriages
• Lifted restrictions on private swinger clubs.
• Lifted restrictions on adult clubs (strippers).
• Were considering legalizing prostitution (not sure if that has been dropped)
• Opened the door for private healthcare (it was only allowed for diagnostics before)
• Were about to decriminalize pot (before the Conservatives got in...)

Hey, got me. I don't understand why there's such a contradiction in the 'Liberal' party either. It advocates freedom... but only for some things.

 

[Danoff]

Smoking in restaurant has been "free market regulated" since the first time I ever went to a restaurant. In my experience, over 95% of the restaurants didn't have any sort of adequate separation between smoking areas. I never actually saw a non-smoking restaurant before, since not a single restaurant owner wanted to take the risk of losing a chunk of his clientele to a competitor that would allow smoking.

Result? I was left with the choice between:

A - Not going to restaurants.
B - Going at a restaurant and breathe cigarette smoke.

Great!! All that to allow a fraction of the people to satisfy their craving for nicotine anywhere, anytime, as they see fit. Does it remove some freedom smokers had before? Sure. Does it mean that we're heading down on a slippery slope towards total government control? No. See above. The real quesion is: In that specific case, does the benefits gained outweight the freedoms removed?

You have to dislike the smoke enough to not go to the restaurant in order for the market to work against it. If you don't dislike the smoke enough to avoid going to the restaurant, how can you possibly think you dislike it enough to take that freedom from others? The market returned a verdict on the smoking situation. The verdict was, people don't mind enough to do anything about it.


Which brings me to the inherent evil in government. The government is the only thing that has the ability to use force against us. All other entities (individuals and corporations) do not have the ability to use force against others.

That's why the government must be kept restricted as much as possible, it holds a great deal of power over us, and enables some of us to use that power against others. It's a necessary evil.

 

[Pako]

What about my rights to be free from air contamination? Again, let me burn plastic and polystyrene in the same room as a smoker, it might as well be the same thing.

What about the rights of the business owner to allow whatever legal activities he so chooses?

Ummm.... I never said that. Must have meant to quote Pupik, it's nice to know I'm in your thoughts.

Anyways, what about governmental health care. You scream for rights, but why should I pay for someone elses cancer treatment from something that they KNEW would give them cancer? I have a real problem with MY tax dollars paying for that. I choose NOT to give myself cancer by smoking or chewing so why should I have to pay for someone elses addiction? Seems like 'we' are paying for everyones addiction. There is a point when the addiction no longer becomes a matter of choice by simply saying Yes or No.... Do they still put chemicals with the tobacco to make it more addictive? If so, why is this not disclosed in the packaging, and even if it did, it wouldn't matter. FoolKiller mentioned Dennis Leary....he also said you could have black packaging with Skull and crossbones on the cig back and call them BLACK CANCER OF DEATH and people would still buy them.... So yeah, you choose to smoke 'em, but with that choice, your rights to received medical assistance from insurance and the government should be waved. I don't want to pay for your choices.

 

[Carl.]

So you're saying it's fine to infringe on the rights of other's as long as you can do what you want?

And non-smokers right not to breathe smoke? Oh, yes, I forgot: they can stay home.

Hey, got me. I don't understand why there's such a contradiction in the 'Liberal' party either. It advocates freedom... but only for some things.

What, like the things that are not actually doing harm... Besides gay marriage and drugs legalization, I don't see how partisanship is relevant there.

 

[Danoff]

Anyways, what about governmental health care. You scream for rights, but why should I pay for someone elses cancer treatment from something that they KNEW would give them cancer?

That's a good point. Government health care is a bad idea for exactly this reason, it makes everyone feel entitled to run everyone else's lives to minimize their medical expenses.

 

[Ghost C]

And non-smokers right not to breathe smoke? Oh, yes, I forgot: they can stay home.

What are you doing, sitting an inch away from a smoker's face and breathing as hard as possible? I can sit at the same table with a person and the smoke won't ever come close to me unless they're leaned over the table blowing it towards me as hard as possible.

There is a reason most restaraunts have superior ventilation systems.

 

[Pako]

What are you doing, sitting an inch away from a smoker's face and breathing as hard as possible? I can sit at the same table with a person and the smoke won't ever come close to me unless they're leaned over the table blowing it towards me as hard as possible.

There is a reason most restaraunts have superior ventilation systems.

With my band, we played the bars since 1999. This winter I finally had to call quits on the bar scene. The smoke was just too thick that I couldn't stand it any longer. Not only that, but I have a shortness of breath that I never had. The same goes with the guitar player as well. Now it was my choice to play there just as it is my choice to not play there. When you say 'most' then you have never been to Montana where every bar is the towns local restaurant with ventilation from circa 1930. There is nothing superior about it. Excuse the pun, but second hand smoke sucks! With new legislation in the works, these places have already started to be smoke free and which has resulted in a whole new group of people that wanted to go out but couldn't stand the smoke. Business is better than ever which is just the opposite reaction they thought they were going to have when smoking was banned.

 

[Carl.]

You have to dislike the smoke enough to not go to the restaurant in order for the market to work against it. If you don't dislike the smoke enough to avoid going to the restaurant, how can you possibly think you dislike it enough to take that freedom from others? The market returned a verdict on the smoking situation. The verdict was, people don't mind enough to do anything about it.

No restaurant owner wanted to actually take the risks, knowing that of course, people won't stop going to restaurants. Since nothing changed, the verdict is that people did mind the situation enough so that a law passed to address it.

Which brings me to the inherent evil in government. The government is the only thing that has the ability to use force against us. All other entities (individuals and corporations) do not have the ability to use force against others.

That's why the government must be kept restricted as much as possible, it holds a great deal of power over us, and enables some of us to use that power against others. It's a necessary evil.

Talking about evil at a rhetorical level is one thing. From a pragmatic point of view, in this particular case, you have:

The drawbacks: smokers are forced to screw up their health at home or in open air instead of incommodating others while doing so, as it has been the case for the last century or so.

The benefits: non-smokers will be able to breathe fresh air in places open to the public. Smoking, and second hand smoking will be reduced.

I'm not seeing what's so evil here. And no, we're not going to forbid pink shirts in public places next week just because of that.

 

[Swift]

And non-smokers right not to breathe smoke? Oh, yes, I forgot: they can stay home.

That's right! Stay home where YOU can control who does what. Here's the basic scenario that your putting out there.

Anti-Smoker: "Hey, I don't like the smell of smoke in YOUR restaurant. I want you to ban all the smoking!"

Owner:"But, there's a large segement of my customer base that smokes and smokers drink more and alcohol makes the biggest profit."

Anti-Smoker: "I don't care! I have a right to not smell cigarettes on YOUR property because I don't like it!"

Owner: "Why not go to a restaurant that already bans smoking or just stay home?"

Anti-Smoker: "Because I like the freedom to eat here and you have good burgers."

Owner: "Then sit down, shut up and enjoy the burger or get out. You can't have it both ways. I'm not going to drop my profits because you don't like smoking. Have a nice day"

Anti-Smoker: "Well, now the government says you HAVE to ban smoking. So now I can be here and not worry about any smoke. HA!"

Owner: "Great, now with all the property, income, social security, and medicare taxes the government's going to hit my profits with this mess too. God bless America!"

That is pretty much what you're saying.

 

[Danoff]

No restaurant owner wanted to actually take the risks, knowing that of course, people won't stop going to restaurants. Since nothing changed, the verdict is that people did mind the situation enough so that a law passed to address it.

Restaurant owners would have elimintated smoking in a heartbeat if they thought it would get them more money. The truth of the matter is that people didn't stop going to restaurants because the smoke didn't bother them enough.

Talking about evil at a rhetorical level is one thing. From a pragmatic point of view, in this particular case, you have:

The drawbacks: smokers are forced to screw up their health at home or in open air instead of incommodating others.

The benefits: non-smokers will be able to breathe fresh air in places open to the public.
- Smoking, and second hand smoking will be reduced.

I'm not seeing what's so evil here. And no, we're not going to forbid pink shirts in public places next week just because of that.

From a logical point of view the government has the power of force and is therefore dangerous.

 

[Swift]

The drawbacks: smokers are forced to screw up their health at home or in open air instead of incommodating others while doing so, as it has been the case for the last century or so.

The benefits: non-smokers will be able to breathe fresh air in places open to the public. Smoking, and second hand smoking will be reduced.

I'm not seeing what's so evil here. And no, we're not going to forbid pink shirts in public places next week just because of that.

Not PAID for by the public. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Danoff]

Not PAID for by the public. Do you understand the difference?

That's a good question. It's starting to become unclear whether Carl is aware of the concept of private property.

 

[Swift]

With my band, we played the bars since 1999. This winter I finally had to call quits on the bar scene. The smoke was just too thick that I couldn't stand it any longer. Not only that, but I have a shortness of breath that I never had. The same goes with the guitar player as well. Now it was my choice to play there just as it is my choice to not play there. When you say 'most' then you have never been to Montana where every bar is the towns local restaurant with ventilation from circa 1930. There is nothing superior about it. Excuse the pun, but second hand smoke sucks! With new legislation in the works, these places have already started to be smoke free and which has resulted in a whole new group of people that wanted to go out but couldn't stand the smoke. Business is better than ever which is just the opposite reaction they thought they were going to have when smoking was banned.

That's a very good and fair point, Pako. Infact, I totally agree since I loathe second hand smoke myself.

But, was it a govenment action or the owner's wising up to the fact that radical amounts of smoke keep families out of their establishment?

 

[Carl.]

Swift, show me where such a law has resulted in losses for restaurant owners.

If such a law has produced an increase of profits for bars, as Pako said, I can hardly imagine how it could result in losses for restaurants.

 

[Famine]

Well if you say so, that might be right. Still it is a difference imo. the carcinogens are the problem, but if they are comined with fumes and other scientific terms I could say in German but not in English they get much easier access into your body(lungs to be specific

Did I say "airborne carcinogens"? I'm pretty sure I did.

the Martini comes out of the bottle and is consumed within a few minutes

As opposed to the infamous nature of burning cigarettes to stay smouldering for 4 or more hours?

No... You're right, I could have avoided going to restaurants in the first place, that's a great solution. Why haven't I thought of that?

Not a clue. Still, it's good to see that you're considering it now, rather than letting your government make the foolish mistake of telling landowners what legal activities they can and can't allow on their land as opposed to public land. "My" government already made that mistake, but our lot never listen to anyone.

 

[Carl.]

That's a good question. It's starting to become unclear whether Carl is aware of the concept of private property.

Really.

It's also starting to become unclear wheter you are aware or concept such as society. You know, the little things such as infrastuctures or social environment that are allowing private business to operate smoothly, or just plain operate.

But hey, I don't mind. Everone wants to enjoy freedom and protection while having to deal with as few responsabilities as they can.

 

[Swift]

Swift, show me where such a law has resulted in losses for restaurant owners.

If such a law has produced an increase of profits for bars, as Pako said, I can hardly imagine how it could result in losses for restaurants.

If you read all of what Pako said, he mentioned that the bars ARE the restaurants where he lives. There is no seperation. I don't think that justifies the government stepping in. But it makes a much stronger case then what you've been saying for the last two pages.

That's NOT the case where I live in the Baltimore Area. There are plenty of family friendly restaurants and just as many bars. It's a FACT that smokers drink more then non smokers. Infact, a lot of people only smoke when they drink. So it's logical for a bar owner to want to allow smoking in his establishment.

Also, what country do you live in? It's not in your location and you've said that "your" government is more left leaning then ours.

BTW, do you know the difference between property open to the public and public property?

In answer to this question you said:

Really.

It's also starting to become unclear wheter you are aware or concept such as society. You know, the little things such as infrastuctures or social environment that are allowing private business to operate smoothly, or just plain operate.

But hey, I don't mind. Everone wants to enjoy freedom and protection while having to deal with as few responsabilities as they can.

So I take that as a no.

 

[Pako]

That's a very good and fair point, Pako. Infact, I totally agree since I loathe second hand smoke myself.

But, was it a govenment action or the owner's wising up to the fact that radical amounts of smoke keep families out of their establishment?

Legislation that passed said that restaurant owners had to be compliant by 2009 I believe. Some decided to comply right away, others are going to drag it out as long as they can.... Take away governmental heath care for cancer patients of smokers/chewers and let them have at them smokes, but as long as Legislation helps these people, I am in full support of legislation trying to curb their habit and future habitours that will in turn cost money out of my pocket for their selfish habit with no reguard for how it effects others.

 

[Scaff]

FoolKiller mentioned Dennis Leary....he also said you could have black packaging with Skull and crossbones on the cig back and call them BLACK CANCER OF DEATH and people would still buy them.... So yeah, you choose to smoke 'em, but with that choice, your rights to received medical assistance from insurance and the government should be waved. I don't want to pay for your choices.

You mean just like the 'Death' brand that was sold in the UK in the '90s

In regard to the argument about medical care, while I am not in a position to comment on the situation in the states, in the UK smokes put a very significant amount of money into the governments coffers. I believe that big-time pro-smoker Jeremy Clarkson once said that in the UK smokers should actually be given priority treatment simply due to the sheer amount of tax on cigs.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Carl.]

That's NOT the case where I live in the Baltimore Area. There are plenty of family friendly restaurants and just as many bars. It's a FACT that smokers drink more then non smokers. Infact, a lot of people only smoke when they drink. So it's logical for a bar owner to want to allow smoking in his establishment.

Fine. I was just asking for an actual example of establisments that actually dealt with losses as a result of a similar law.

Also, what country do you live in? It's not in your location and you've said that "your" government is more left leaning then ours.

North of the border.

BTW, do you know the difference between property open to the public and public property?

In answer to this question you said:

So I take that as a no.

Yes I do. A business being private doesn't exonerate it from having to follow the rules set by the society within which they operate. We provide a framework, an environment to do business, and we also set rules to do so.

If you consider me staying at home a proper answer, then I'll say exactly the same: if the owners cannot deal with it, they're absolutely free to do something else, or go somewhere else.

 

[Pako]

If you read all of what Pako said, he mentioned that the bars ARE the restaurants where he lives. There is no seperation. I don't think that justifies the government stepping in. But it makes a much stronger case then what you've been saying for the last two pages.

*snip*

That is correct Swift. If the establishment serves food then they fall into that category. As far as I know, if they are only a bar without food services, smoking is still going to be allowed. I don't know if ventilation requirements need to be meet (being able to circulate so many CFM of air per Cubic feet of facility). If their aren't any ventilation laws, there should be. It IS a health hazard, just as not having enough exits is also a health hazard. If the owner allows smoking, then they have an obligation to reduce any additional risks that could be prevented by the owner, in my humble opinion.

 

[Swift]

Yes I do. A business being private doesn't exonerate it from having to follow the rules set by the society within which they operate.

If you consider me staying at home a proper answer, then I'll say exactly the same: if the owners cannot deal with it, they're absolutely free to do something else, or go somewhere else.

Um...no. A business bought legally and that is running within all the upmteen hundred rules that the government already set in for health codes and all IS part of the society within which they operate. The society or even the particular block isn't horrid because there's an establishment that allows smoking. It's just a place where people can smoke. So what? How does it infringe your YOUR rights that there is a place that allows smoking?

 

[Danoff]

But hey, I don't mind. Everone wants to enjoy freedom and protection while having to deal with as few responsabilities as they can.

I see, like customers not wanting to deal with the responsibility of deciding which restaurants to visit.